reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@annaban86699170 - Anna
DEPOPULATION: Anatoly Chubais, Former Chief of the Presidential Administration of RUSSIA “The aim is to bring world population of 7 billion people down to 2.5-1.5 billion. Our country (Russia) is capable to do its part at such unprecedented challenge.” https://t.co/fjomSRYXFw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Despite the wide range of opinions among experts, scientists, and analysts, there is a consensus that continuing the trends of the 20th century is impossible in the 21st century. This is because there are physical limits to all types of resources on our planet. The scenario of continued growth is excluded, and the only scenario that awaits us is one close to catastrophic. The world population, currently at 7 billion, is projected to decrease to 25.2 or even 15 billion by the end of the century. Our country is capable of making a real contribution to addressing these unprecedented challenges. Thank you for your attention.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Самом большом разбросе мнения экспертов, ученых, аналитиков сегодня абсолютный консенсус прогноза состоит в том, что в 21 веке продление трендов 20-го немыслимо. Этого быть не может просто потому, что физические пределы существуют у всех видов ресурсов на нашей планете Земля. Это означает, что сценарий продолжения роста исключен. Такого сценария, в той же динамике, и нам известная с этой динамикой, и мы провели всю свою жизнь, этой динамики больше нет и быть не может. Единственный сценарий, который нам предстоит, сценарий, близкий к катастрофическому.
Представьте себе, здесь кривая такая условная, но по сути речь идет о том, что численность населения земного шара, вот с тех самых 7 миллиардов, которые на этой неделе будут достигнуты, к концу века должна снизиться до 25, 2 или даже 15 миллиардов человек. И наша страна способно внести реальный вклад в решение этих беспрецедентных вызовов. Спасибо за внимание.
@LarryTaunton - Larry Alex Taunton
World Economic Forum “Agenda Contributor” Dr. Dennis Meadow says we need: • To reduce the global population to less than 2 billion “peacefully” • A global “dictatorship” This is why I went to Davos. #Globalists are dangerous and must be stopped.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They hope for a civil and peaceful decline in population, where conflict is resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1-2 billion people, depending on the desired level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that a strong dictatorship with a low standard of living could support 8-9 billion people, but that is not desirable. The speaker hopes for a slow and relatively equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few rich individuals forcing others to deal with it. These hopes are seen as pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are so far, goby, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another, it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way. And I mean civil in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people. Maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people.
We could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships, they're always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, trying to force everybody else to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
reSee.it AI Summary
The Western oligarchy's core ideology is depopulation. Billionaires like Gates, Rockefeller Jr, Buffett, Soros, Bloomberg, Turner, and Winfrey gathered to prioritize overpopulation. Gates outlined a plan to cap the world's population at 83 Bn people. The Club of Rome, original architects of the ClimateScam, assert that absolute control over society, including population control, is necessary to avert hypothetical crises. Peccei gave three solutions to the problem of surplus humans in 1969: biological germ or virus, mass sterilization, or elimination of all surplus humans.
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
Depopulation is the real hidden core ideology of the contemporary Western oligarchy. Once you are able to accept this as reality everything else that happened in the last three years makes perfect sense.
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
"Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Jr, Warren Buffett & George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner & Oprah Winfrey. They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist.. they agreed that overpopulation was a priority." https://thetimes.co.uk/article/billionaire-club-in-bid-to-curb-overpopulation-d2fl22qhl02
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
"Bill Gates, David Rockefeller Jr, Warren Buffett & George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner & Oprah Winfrey. They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist.. they agreed that overpopulation was a priority." https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/billionaire-club-in-bid-to-curb-overpopulation-d2fl22qhl02
Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation
SOME of America's leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population and speed up improvements in health and education.
thetimes.co.uk
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
"Gates, Buffett & Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates..outlined a plan to try to cap the world's population at 8.3 Bn people, rather than the projected 9.3 Bn Some are raising the specter of eugenics" https://wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-1322
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
"Gates, Buffett & Turner have been quietly worrying about Malthusian population problems for years. Mr. Gates..outlined a plan to try to cap the world's population at 8.3 Bn people, rather than the projected 9.3 Bn Some are raising the specter of eugenics" https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WHB-1322
Page Not Found
We can’t find the page you are looking for.
wsj.com
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
Also known as "Malthusianism".
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei in "The Chasm Ahead" London 1969 Peccei gives 3 "solutions" to the problem of "surplus humans" in 1969: 1. Biological "germ or virus" 2. "Mass sterilization" 3. "Elimination of all surplus humans" https://archive.org/details/chasmahead0000pecc/page/174/mode/2up?q=control&view=theater…
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei in "The Chasm Ahead" London 1969 Peccei gives 3 "solutions" to the problem of "surplus humans" in 1969: 1. Biological "germ or virus" 2. "Mass sterilization" 3. "Elimination of all surplus humans" https://archive.org/details/chasmahead0000pecc/page/174/mode/2up?q=control&view=theater
The chasm ahead : Peccei, Aurelio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xvi, 297 p. : 22 cm
archive.org
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
In this 1973 documentary, key members of the Club of Rome—the original architects of the #ClimateScam—assert that absolute control over society, including population control, a halt to economic prosperity and reduced industrial production, is necessary to avert hypothetical… Show more https://t.co/ER5WnjamIH
@backtolife_2023 - Wittgenstein
Dennis Meadows, one of the original members of the Club of Rome & co-author of 'Limits to Growth' (1972) speaking openly about how the population must be reduced to 1-2 billion & mentions epidemics as a possibility. Source: Muh World (YouTube)
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that the global population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a civil and peaceful decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that having more people would require a strong and smart dictatorship, which is unlikely. The speaker hopes for a slow and equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing it on others. They admit that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But in one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another, it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way. And I mean civil in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet, can support something like a 1000000000 people? Maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, if you can have more people, I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships, they're always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a But We want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know, but, that's that's what lies ahead.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, suggests that Earth can only sustain 1 or 2 billion people with liberty and material consumption. He believes a strong dictatorship could support 8 or 9 billion. However, it is argued that the world's population of 8 billion can comfortably fit in Texas, with enough space and food for everyone. The key is to not solely rely on electric vehicles and solar panels, but to explore secret technology for unlimited clean energy.
@timingnl - Timothy Robert
Club of Rome member Dennis Meadows, stuck in his Beliefs, calls for a depopulation “Earth can support 1 or 2 billion people depending on how much liberty & material consumption you want to have We could have 8 or 9 billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship” https://t.co/8vOzd6YE2l
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that the global population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil reduction in population, emphasizing that peace does not mean everyone will be happy, but rather conflicts should be resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1-2 billion people depending on the desired level of liberty and consumption. They mention the possibility of having more people under a smart dictatorship, but highlight the importance of freedom and a high standard of living. The speaker hopes for a gradual and equal reduction in population, avoiding a scenario where a few wealthy individuals impose the burden on others. They admit that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So far, globally, you are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way. I I and I mean civil in a in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000 depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have? If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And, conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid. So But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're gonna have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way, which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share, the experience and then you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's
@timingnl - Timothy Robert
As many of us know, our 8 billion world population easily fits in the State of Texas with plenty of space & food for everyone. We just should not all get EV’s & Solar Panels. We can have unlimited real free clean energy once secret technology becomes publicly available. https://t.co/2q09NFeMj7
reSee.it AI Summary
In 1994, Dr. John Coleman, a former intelligence officer turned whistleblower, warned about the Club of Rome's plans. This group, known as the original architects of the Climate Scam, aimed to reduce the world's population by 50% by 2050. The Club of Rome's objective was to bring down industries and agricultural development in the United States. Dr. Coleman, author of books like "Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300," shared his insights in a lecture. For more content, visit wideawakemedia.com. NetZero, Agenda21, Agenda2030, and the Great Reset are all part of this agenda.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking in 1994, ex-intelligence officer turned whistleblower, Dr. John Coleman, warned us about what the Club of Rome—original architects of the #ClimateScam—had planned for us, including a 50% reduction of the world's population by 2050. "[The Club of Rome was founded] with the main object of bringing down the industries and the agricultural development of the United States." Dr. John Coleman was the author of many books on the subject, most notably ‘Conspirators’ Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300′. Full lecture: https://rumble.com/v1p0d0v-1994-lecture-from-dr-john-coleman-on-the-committee-of-300.html For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #NetZero #Agenda21 #Agenda2030 #GreatReset
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the Club of Rome, an organization that aims to bring down industries and agricultural development in the United States. They claim that the Club of Rome believes overpopulation is a curse caused by the United States and proposes getting rid of half the world's population. The speaker also mentions the Zero Growth Post Industrial Plan, which targets the middle class in the United States as an obstacle to a world order. The plan suggests crushing industries to bring down the middle class. Additionally, the speaker mentions the Global 2000, a blueprint for mass genocide that aims to destroy half the world's population by 2050.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The cloak of Rome is one of the most insidious, baneful organizations in existence today, which have done intolerable, immeasurable harm to the United States of America, this Karelia 300 told a man called Aurelio Pekki to form this tug of Rome with the main object of bringing down the industries and the agricultural development of the United States. He immediately wrote a paper in which he said, there are too many people on the earth and that the United States, with its industrial development, its agricultural development, is responsible for this curse of overpopulation. The world is grossly overpopulated, and we have to get rid of at least half of the world's population, and it doesn't matter how we do it. So, the Club of Rome was instituted and organized to start an attack on the world's population, using the United States as the whipping boy, and they came up with a paper called the Zero Growth Post Industrial Plan for industry and agriculture for the United States of America, 3 days after that plan was accepted as official United States policy by James Earl Carter, I was able to, through my intelligence people get a copy of this insidious document.
Basically, what it said was that the middle class in the United States of America had to be destroyed, because in the coming push to a world order, the middle class would be the stumbling block, because history had shown that the peasant class in ancient days when they had revolted were just easily crushed. There was no resistance, but now had grown a new super class of people in the United States called the middle class, who had long term employment, who had job security, who were well paid. And the Club of Rome post Industrial Zero Growth Paper, said, this has got to stop. We have to bring down the middle class of the United States. And the way that we will do this, the way that we will accomplish this task is by crushing their industries.
That brings me to the next question, what is the Global 2000? Once again, when I heard about this policy, because 3 days after it had been accepted by the United States government as its official policy. And the Global 2000 was a blueprint for mass genocide produced by the Club of Rome. Basically, what the Global 2000 calls for is the destruction of half of the world's population by the year 2050.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a 2015 speech, former Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad warned of a globalist plan to reduce the world population to one billion. He suggested methods like mass killings, starvation, and birth prevention. For more content, visit wide-awake-media.com.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking in 2015, former Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, warned of the globalist plan to reduce the global population down to one billion. "There will be a need to kill many billions of people, or to starve them to death, or to prevent them from giving birth, in order to reduce the population of this world." Full speech: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UGRkQiLxi3Q… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the concept of a new world order, where a single world government led by wealthy and powerful elites would govern the entire world. The focus is on abolishing states, nations, and borders, and imposing rules on everyone. The video highlights the use of military force and propaganda to enforce this new order, including regime change in non-compliant countries. Sanctions are mentioned as a means of punishment, and the intention to reduce the world's population is discussed. The video concludes by suggesting that the peace achieved through this new world order would be akin to the peace of the graveyard.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The subject is the new world order. It is about having a world government. We should abolish all states, all nations, all borders, but instead have only 1 world government. And that world government is to be by certain people, elites, People who are very rich, very intelligent, very powerful in many ways, they are the ones who will govern the world. There was not much talk about democracy or choice of leaders.
Instead, There was to be a government by these elites who will impose their rules on everyone in this world. And for those who are unwilling to submit to them, there will be punishment. So we find that already there is a new world government enforced with powerful military forces and a willingness to subvert and undermine the governments of all countries. Politically, We see them urging every country to undergo regime change except for those who are already submitting to them. There must be regime change so that All governments in this world would submit to this world power, this world government.
And if you refuse to change your government, you will be persuaded through propaganda, through actions including invasion and occupation, and the removal of the hate of that government to be replaced by one that submits to the most powerful nation. In other words, the one who will accept the concept of a new world order. But that is not all. We find that if you are recalcitrant, You don't like to conform. Then you may have sanctions placed against you.
We see already countries like Iran and Russia facing the application of sanctions on their trade with other countries. We see all kinds of subversion taking place, undermining our moral values to the extent that we become helpless, unable to do anything. And the peace that we will get from this is the peace of the graveyard because the intention also is to reduce the number of people in this world. At the time when the new world order was enunciated, the population of this world was only 3,000,000,000. The intention was to reduce it to 1,000,000,000.
Now the population of the world is 7,000,000,000. There will be a need to kill many billions of people or to starve them to death or to prevent them from giving birth in order to reduce the population of this world. This is what is in store for most, for those who will suffer and die. There will be the peace of the grave.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a Club of Rome member, envisions a civil depopulation of Earth to one billion, reducing today's population by 87.5%. The planet can sustain up to two billion people, depending on liberty and material consumption. More liberty and consumption require fewer individuals, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate eight or nine billion. Visit wideawakemedia.com for similar content. #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Prominent Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of Planet Earth, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are currently consuming and populating the planet at unsustainable levels. I believe that this will eventually lead to a decline, and I hope it can happen peacefully. Peace doesn't mean everyone will be happy, but conflicts should be resolved without violence. The planet can support a billion or two billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. If we want more freedom and consumption, we need fewer people. However, smart dictatorships with low living standards could support even more people. Ideally, we should aim for a slow and equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience rather than a few wealthy individuals forcing others to deal with it. These hopes may seem pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But,
reSee.it AI Summary
The campaign to justify mass killings as a necessity and the belief in an inevitable global pandemic are major lies. The population growth is slowing naturally, except in sub-Saharan Africa. No evidence supports the claim that Earth is overpopulated. The same groups behind the pandemic lies also promote fake global warming. Both climate change and pandemic threats are fraudulent. The similarities in propaganda methods are striking. These stakeholder groups aim to curtail freedom and impose digital totalitarian tyranny. We must wake up to the real existential threat we face.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
https://youtu.be/b7lmh5XVRW0 Here you have one of the big lies than underscore the 50+year campaign to persuade us that killing billions is unfortunately necessary. The other big lie is that “virus pandemic” will inevitably sweep across the planet.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
Meadows pretends population is growing “exponentially”. It’s not. It’s slowing naturally. Almost everywhere than sub-Saharan Africa, the birth rate in scores of countries is already below replacement. Once that happens,there are zero examples of countries reversing that trend.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
He takes it as read that “earth is substantially above a sustainable population, while providing not a scrap of evidence for that. At no time in 50 years did Club of Rome ever model the possibility that population might peak & then begin to fall back. There’s a reason for that.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
The idea for a body of supposed experts to champion the ideas that you almost certainly hold, despite there being no evidence for them, came from certain quarters who are also centrally involved in the other great lie, virus pandemics.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
Malthusian ideas have gripped the self-appointed “elites”for over a century. Groups of clever people were funded by the Malthusian perpetrators & tasked with coming up with problems they argued couldn’t be tackled by individual nations. They chose “global warming” & “pandemics”.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
This is why, once you discard the beliefs you hold in relation to these fraudulent claims (that climate change & pandemics are existential threats) & start looking carefully yourself at the evidence, you discover nothing but lies and fraud in both fields.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
On the positive side, many of those who realised that covid was a total scam (for which tabletop simulations have been run for 25y) also noticed the tremendous similarities of propaganda method and narrative enforcement between pandemic threat lies and climate change lies.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
That’s because it’s the same stakeholder groups backing both fake pandemics (& associated deliberately toxic injections) and fake global warming (with its logical but also wrong reach-through to energy consumption & individual freedom).
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
I realised in 2020 that the pandemic was fake, enabled by lies, amplified by 24/7 media fear porn & knowingly untrustworthy PCR-based clinical diagnostics (enabling misattribution of cause of death) & that “vaccines” were going to be used to curtail freedom & begin mass killing.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
You may be sure that this cycle of authoritarianism will continue until digital totalitarian tyranny is locked into place and from which escape is all but impossible, or until enough of us wake up to the real existential threat we face.
reSee.it AI Summary
UN Messenger of Peace Jane Goodall urges reducing global population to 450 million, a 95% decrease from today. Population growth is the root cause of many problems we face. Solutions would be easier with a population size similar to 500 years ago. Source: [link] For more content, visit [link]. #WorldEconomicForum #UnitedNations #DepopulationAgenda
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking on a World Economic Forum panel, UN "Messenger of Peace", Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million—a 95% reduction from today's population: "We cannot hide away from human population growth. Because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9XKm0MUIJQs… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #WorldEconomicForum #UnitedNations #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
We should reduce meat consumption and halt the use of land for cattle and animal feed production. Additionally, we cannot ignore the issue of human population growth, as it contributes to many other problems. If our population size resembled that of 500 years ago, many of the challenges we face today would not exist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need to eat less meat. We need to to stop land being used for cattle and growing grain for the billions of animals that we keep in our intensive farms. And then finally, we cannot we cannot hide away from human population growth because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there were if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.
reSee.it AI Summary
In a 2015 speech, former Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad warned about a globalist plan to reduce the world population to one billion. He suggested methods like mass killings, starvation, and birth prevention. For more content, visit wide-awake-media.com.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking in 2015, former Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, warned us about the globalist plan to reduce the global population down to one billion people. "There will be a need to kill many billions of people, or to starve them to death, or to prevent them from giving birth, in order to reduce the population of this world." Full speech: https://youtube.com/watch?v=UGRkQiLxi3Q… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the concept of a new world order, where a single world government would be established by a group of wealthy and powerful elites. The idea is to abolish all states and borders, with these elites imposing their rules on everyone. Those who resist would face punishment, including propaganda, invasion, occupation, and sanctions. The ultimate goal is to reduce the world's population from 7 billion to 1 billion. The video suggests that this new world order would bring a false sense of peace, but at the cost of suffering and death for many.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The subject is the new world order. It is about having a world government. We should abolish all states, all nations, all borders, but instead have only 1 world government. And that world government is to be by certain people, elites, People who are very rich, very intelligent, very powerful in many ways, they are the ones who will govern the world. There was not much talk about democracy or choice of leaders.
Instead, There was to be a government by these elites who will impose their rules on everyone in this world. And for those who are unwilling to submit to them, there will be punishment. So we find that already there is a new world government enforced with powerful military forces and a willingness to subvert and undermine the governments of all countries. Politically, We see them urging every country to undergo regime change except for those who are already submitting to them. There must be regime change so that All governments in this world would submit to this world power, this world government.
And if you refuse to change your government, you will be persuaded through propaganda, through actions including invasion and occupation, and the removal of the hate of that government to be replaced by one that submits to the most powerful nation. In other words, the one who will accept the concept of a new world order. But that is not all. We find that if you are recalcitrant, You don't like to conform. Then you may have sanctions placed against you.
We see already countries like Iran and Russia facing the application of sanctions on their trade with other countries. We see all kinds of subversion taking place, undermining our moral values to the extent that we become helpless, unable to do anything. And the peace that we will get from this is the peace of the graveyard because the intention also is to reduce the number of people in this world. At the time when the new world order was enunciated, the population of this world was only 3,000,000,000. The intention was to reduce it to 1,000,000,000.
Now the population of the world is 7,000,000,000. There will be a need to kill many billions of people or to starve them to death or to prevent them from giving birth in order to reduce the population of this world. This is what is in store for most, for those who will suffer and die. There will be the peace of the grave.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, envisions a civil depopulation of the planet to one billion people, reducing today's population by 87.5%. The planet can sustain up to two billion people, depending on liberty and material consumption. More liberty and consumption require fewer people, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate even eight or nine billion. Source: youtu.be/Dbo6uvJBtZg. For similar content, visit wideawakemedia.com. #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Dennis Meadows, a prominent member of the Club of Rome, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to just one billion people—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are currently consuming and populating the planet at unsustainable levels. I believe that this will eventually lead to a decline, and I hope it can happen peacefully. Peace doesn't mean everyone will be happy, but conflicts should be resolved without violence. The planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. If we want more freedom and consumption, we need fewer people. However, smart dictatorships with low living standards could support even more people. Ideally, we should aim for a slow and equal decline in population, avoiding a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. These hopes may seem pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But,
reSee.it AI Summary
The Earth can sustain around one to two billion people, depending on the level of freedom and material consumption desired. If we aim for more freedom and consumption, we must have fewer individuals. Conversely, if we want more humans, we may need to compromise on freedom and consumption. The reduction of one billion people is hoped to be achieved in the future.
@10121Ws - WS 10121
𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘄𝘀, membre éminent du 𝘾𝙡𝙪𝙗 𝙙𝙚 𝙍𝙤𝙢𝙚, espère que le 𝙙𝙚́𝙥𝙚𝙪𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 "nécessaire" de la planète à seulement un milliard de personnes, soit 87,5 % de moins qu'aujourd'hui, pourra se faire "𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙚̀𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙡𝙚". https://t.co/4L79IOJQyG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They hope for a gradual and peaceful decline in population, with a focus on equality and shared experiences. The speaker suggests that if we want more liberty and consumption, we need fewer people, but notes that smart dictatorships are rare. They express pessimistic hopes for the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another, it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil sway, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. Spent conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have. But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience, and you don't have a few rich, trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know, but, that's that's what lies ahead.
@10121Ws - WS 10121
"La planète peut supporter environ un milliard de personnes, peut-être peut-être deux milliards, selon le degré de liberté et de consommation matérielle que tu veux avoir. Si tu veux plus de liberté et plus de consommation, tu dois avoir moins de personnes. Inversement, tu
@10121Ws - WS 10121
peux avoir plus d'humains. Je veux dire, nous pourrions même avoir ou neuf milliards, probablement si nous avons une 𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙏𝙍𝙀̀𝙎 𝙁𝙊𝙍𝙏𝙀".
reSee.it AI Summary
Elites' mindset on reducing world population is explored in the 1973 documentary 'Limits to Growth' based on Dennis Meadows' book for the Club of Rome. Meadows suggests a peaceful, gradual decline from 7 billion to 1 billion people, ensuring shared experience and avoiding a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions. Balancing liberty and consumption determines the planet's capacity. Dictatorships may accommodate more people, but freedom calls for fewer. The aim is a controlled, equitable transition.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
If you want to look into the mind of the elites and understand the reasonings behind their insatiable need to reduce the world population, then you should watch this documentary from 1973 called Limits to Growth, which was based on the book written by Dennis Meadows, commissioned by the infamous and depopulation obsessed Club of Rome. If you're not familiar, Meadows is the man who said the following an interview... You are the carbon they want to reduce. "I hope this occurs in a civilized approach. I imply in a non-public approach. A peaceable approach, however peace does not imply everyone seems to be joyful. But it surely does imply that the street has been resolved by different means, not violence, which is what I imply. So there are 7 billion folks proper now however “We’re going to have 1 billion folks. We now have to return down. I hope it occurs slowly and evenly.” "The planet can support something like 1 billion people, maybe 2 billion depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people, I mean we could have 8 or 9 billion probably, if we have a strong dictatorship which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always so stupid, but if you had a smart one and a low standard of living.. but....but... we want to have freedom and so we're going to have a billion people, and we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it"
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the concept of growth and its impact on the world. It highlights the finite nature of resources and the need for balance between human activities and nature. The study conducted by the Club of Rome concludes that continued growth will lead to crises such as pollution, resource depletion, and food shortages. The video explores different scenarios and the potential consequences of growth, including collapse and instability. It suggests that a shift away from the emphasis on material goods and economic growth is necessary to create a more sustainable and equitable world. The video emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making, political action, and individual responsibility in shaping a better future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our riches and our numbers burden the world.
Speaker 1: If you remember the dramatic pictures taken by the Apollo fires of the Earth standing out in space all by itself, No one after seeing that could deny that the world is finite. Then it's impossible for people to go out and saying, We have an infinite supply of air, an infinite supply of water, an infinite supply of minerals. Man must Learn to balance his activities in nature against the regenerative power of nature Or he is inevitably going to join the, tyrannosaurus in extinction.
Speaker 0: As we grow richer, there is rising concern about pollution, Our ability to feed a growing population, and fears that we may run out of fuel and metals.
Speaker 2: A computer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been used to look at these problems. To analyze, in broad terms, the direction in which our world is headed. Sponsored by a group of businessmen and academics, the Club of Rome, its conclusions are revolutionary.
Speaker 3: The most important lesson is that we're near the end of our development of society, which we've been going on for about 2000 years, That we've reached levels of prosperity, which carry the seeds of disruption and necessitate a complete relook at the whole world's social, political
Speaker 4: It's telling us that the world is in a completely unstable situation and is likely to fall to pieces if it doesn't stop growing.
Speaker 5: Let's put it bluntly. Our option is not between this kind of society, present society and a stable state society. It is between a stable state society and chaos.
Speaker 2: The world is 6,000,000,000 years old. That is unimaginable. So think of it as a week. All through Sunday and most of Monday Nothing much happens. Late Monday night, a cell divides.
Life has begun. Through Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and most of Saturday, life becomes more complex and more beautiful. In a barren Universe, Life on Earth is being sustained by an increasingly stable and complex biology. At tea time on Saturday, it is the age of the reptiles. At 3 minutes to midnight man appears.
One second before midnight, Man the hunter, becomes man the farmer. At 1 40th of a second midnight, The industrial revolution begins.
Speaker 0: It is now midnight. In that last 40th of a second, we have started to get richer to never increasing rate. Growth is explosive population now doubles in 30 years. Man now uses twice as much energy as he did 15 years ago. And industrial production has nearly tripled in the last 15 years.
Speaker 2: During this program, men on the earth will consume 200,000 tons of petroleum and 200,000 tons of coal, produce 2,000 motor cars, and use 400,000,000 kilowatts of electricity.
Speaker 0: If we use known stocks at present rates, there will be no copper left in 2008. No zinc in 1995, no tin in 1989 and no mercury in 1985. There will be no silver Without which we cannot make films in 1987.
Speaker 2: Today we consume more than yesterday. Our children, if they live as we do, we use up resources more than twice as fast as we do.
Speaker 0: Our grandchildren might need twice as much oil as we found in Alaska just to meet their increased needs for 1 year.
Speaker 2: Such growth threatens to use up all the resources the Earth has to offer us. Such are the enormous needs of the industrial society in progress.
Speaker 4: The industrial revolution has consumed vast quantities of fossil fuels, for example, and now there aren't many left And it's as simple as that. If you have a kind of society which is going to eat the the very planet we're on, eat it up, consume it, you will find that there's nothing left.
Speaker 2: Our industry, the way we make things, attacks the fabric and stability of nature, The ecosystem on which all life, including man, depends.
Speaker 6: It has been developed to exploit the ecosystem Without taking into account its continued existence. And our new technologies tend to disrupt ecological cycles, to break them, to intrude, harmful, unnatural materials on them, and, therefore, to destroy the base of its own existence. Because of that, we are on a suicidal course.
Speaker 0: We are faced by dilemmas. Industry cannot exist without the raw materials it must use up. Nor can it function without the natural world that it may be destroying. So great is our progress that it may push the Earth to its limits and beyond. We threaten a confrontation with nature.
Progress to that confrontation is speeding up.
Speaker 7: What we're really being told is that although nobody knows for sure exactly when it will happen or exactly what risk is the greatest risk man's face, man faces, scientists are fairly unanimous in saying that man does face extremely important risks. When global population is doubling every 33 years, when resource consumption is doubling every 20 years, No long term view of
Speaker 8: mankind can proceed without first forming some preliminary answers to these questions.
Speaker 2: Professor Dennis Meadows, at a conference in Washington to mark the publication of his team study for the club of Rome, the limits to growth, It concludes that economic growth always generates a crisis, that the road to riches is the road to disaster.
Speaker 0: Even if we solve problems like pollution, growth within a century or so would lead to widespread famine and social chaos. Dennis Meadows and his team used a computer. He explains why.
Speaker 8: With system dynamics, a methodology that we use, we Organize the available information on the relationships in some system, and then we express these mathematically and put them into a computer to calculate the results. It's possible for men to perceive the individual relationships in a system, But very difficult indeed without any assistance from a computer to understand what their implications will be when they interact.
Speaker 2: At first sight, there doesn't seem to be much relationship between farming and industry, but industry produces pollution and pollution affects crops, So a change in industry, affects farming via pollution. The man made world consists of a whole complex of subtle relationships like that. Change one thing, and it sets up a slow and complicated chain reaction.
Speaker 0: The equations in the computer define these relationships. So the computer can show how one thing affects everything else, not only immediately, but over many years. The runs on the computer show how these things would interact and affect man's future. They used the computer to see what would happen if man successfully tackled his obvious problems If he grew more food, found more natural resources and control pollution
Speaker 2: But first they run the computer to see what direction the world would take if it ran its present course
Speaker 0: As the century unfolds, industry grows, as does food production and population. But we're using up all our raw materials, the limited metals and fuel in the earth. These run out. Without fuel and metals for the factories, industry collapses. Farming has become highly mechanized, and without petrol and electricity, food production falls too.
There's no food and massive unemployment, so the population falls. People are dying. Dennis Meadows explains.
Speaker 8: Because of the high population levels and the increasing industrialisation, natural resources are depleted at an increasing rate. And finally, they fall down to the point where the industrial system can no longer be sustained.
Speaker 2: What might this mean in human terms to the average Western family. Over 50 years or more, we get richer, we consume more and more resources. Things like gas and electricity. When essential raw materials like oil and copper run out, Civilized life ends.
Speaker 0: If we go on as we are, society collapses because we run out of metals and fuel. Growth is halted by a resource crisis.
Speaker 2: Science and technology could help us here. We might find new sources of fuel, use nuclear power, or harness the energy of the sun to replace oil and coal. Metals could be used more carefully. We could save and sort out our scrap. We might find substitutes for scarce metals.
So they run the computer to see what would happen, If we solve the resources problem that caused the crisis in the first run.
Speaker 0: This time natural resources used carefully run down slowly But industry continues to grow. This industrial growth produces a serious pollution problem. Pollution attacks both people and plants crops cannot grow and farming starts to fail. The population starts to collapse when people die of hunger and pollution. Industry, without a workforce, collapses, too.
Speaker 8: But now pollution is permitted to rise because industrialization goes further. And finally, pollution begins to impair the lifetime of the people and the productivity of the agricultural sector.
Speaker 2: This time then, growth is not stopped by a resource crisis. Our family grows richer, consuming more and more goods. But the factories producing these goods are also producing pollution. This time, it is pollution that holds growth in catastrophe.
Speaker 0: To keep growing, we need more raw materials. If we find those materials, growth continues till we die of pollution.
Speaker 2: But we could control pollution. Indeed, we are already beginning to do so. We know how to clean up our water and air. The pollution created by technology can be restrained by technology. So in the next run, they assumed not only that we had solved our raw materials difficulties, but that we had controlled pollution as well.
Speaker 0: So resources still run down slowly. Industry can expand. Pollution, now controlled, doesn't become a problem. Growth is progressing. But this time the population grows so large that food becomes a problem.
Food production cannot keep pace with population. People starve, and industrial society collapses.
Speaker 8: In this case, the land resources become insufficient, pressure on the land begins to lead to land deterioration. And finally, food per capita collapses and brings about a population decline.
Speaker 2: This time the problem is food. Growth provides us with increasing wealth, but as the population grows Food becomes more and more expensive. The growing food shortage turned slowly to famine.
Speaker 0: So if growth is not halted by pollution or a resource shortage. It is halted by a food crisis.
Speaker 2: But there could be a solution to that too, the green revolution Scientists have been able to double and even treble yields. We can grow more food. So on the next run, as well as pollution controls and a careful use of resources, They assumed that food production could be doubled.
Speaker 0: Resources still used carefully fall slowly. Pollution still controlled is no problem And now food production, backed by the green revolution, rises. The system is experiencing explosive growth. The lines go off the graph. This growth of industry is so huge and rapid that it suddenly generates a pollution problem despite pollution controls And the industry and the population collapses.
Speaker 8: Because land is no longer a limit to growth, Industrialization rises to the point where even with the pollution control measures we had before, pollution becomes a very serious problem, And again brings about the collapse.
Speaker 0: So if we control pollution, conserve natural resources and grow more food, Growth is still halted by a pollution problem.
Speaker 2: Technical solutions are not sufficient. Revolution control, resource conservation, and the Green Revolution serve only to postpone or worsen the crises. The obvious is not enough.
Speaker 8: The runs illustrate very succinctly that Pollution, natural resource depletion are not problems themselves. The problem is growth in a finite world. So long as we ignore that fact and Rely on growth over the short term to solve our problems, overshoot and collapse of the form, which we see in the world model, seems to us to be absolutely inevitable.
Speaker 0: Famine, pollution, and scarcity are not really problems. They are symptoms symptoms of growth.
Speaker 2: But what about population? Was instability due to the pressures of population growth? A population that doubles every 30 years, that adds 70,000,000 extra human beings to the planet every year? They ran the computer to investigate what would happen if nothing but population were controlled
Speaker 0: population is stabilized. Only 2 children per family. Industrial production and food production surge ahead and pollution rises, too. The system is growing, But again, industry uses too many resources which run out, bringing down the system yet again. Even with population controlled, Growth brings us up against a resources problem.
Speaker 2: So population control is not sufficient either. They made other runs on the computer. Different combinations of policies. However they juggled population controls, with pollution controls, with resource conservation, with food production, the result was a breakdown. A breakdown that implies millions of deaths and the collapse of civilized life.
What had been the reaction of informed opinion to this study and its bleak prognosis?
Speaker 7: I think the study makes an important contribution to the environmental dialogue. It points up some of the fundamental issues that man is going to have to grapple with if he's going to survive and continue to improve his position on this planet.
Speaker 9: I think this has two Important advantages over other studies in this field, and have been many other studies, the first is that the computer allows you to handle a very complex situation, an enormous number of interrelated effects, So complex that one could not grasp all these within 1 human mind, but the computer can handle those easily and Explore the way they react upon each other and how they evolve, that's the first point. Second point I think is that because you have to put it into a computer, you have to get all your assumptions out on the table And that means that the thing is very precise, and if someone doesn't like the model or assumptions, they can see Exactly what bits I don't like and take those out and put their own in.
Speaker 0: Skeptics say forecasts of doom are the result of doomsday assumptions. Make different assumptions, change the equations a little, you would produce very different results. If you put nonsense into a computer, they say, You get nonsense out.
Speaker 8: I think that's a very reasonable response. The question comes, of course, is it possible to put something into the computer which can be defended as reasonable, which alters the conclusions. I'm rather confident that while in the precise nature of our conclusions, There will ultimately be made changes that the general conclusions, the fact that growth has a tendency to resolve itself through collapse. Those conclusions are simply not going to be altered by any reasonably defensible additions to the model.
Speaker 2: The computer does not predict. It sketches the direction in which our world is moving. It clarifies some of the conflicts between the natural and the man made world. Nature is balanced. Tamper with one part of it, and the complex and unexpected will turn up in another part.
That is what the study shows.
Speaker 0: Technological societies, too, are highly interconnected. Intervention in one part increasing say food production may have unexpected and unfortunate results elsewhere.
Speaker 2: It doesn't prophesy, but it does give us a new way of seeing the world. It is showing us how and why some of our most serious problems interrelate.
Speaker 0: The model is simple. The world is complex. The crude predictions we see in the study would appear in the world in much more complex ways. The real event, if it happens, would certainly be more complicated, and different kinds of countries are vulnerable in different ways.
Speaker 8: It seems obvious to us that decline, if it does come, will be experienced at different times and in different ways In various societies, the United States might conceivably have a natural resource problem, while Japan could conceivably fail to cure its pollution problems and be led into difficulty that way. Some of the less industrialized areas at the same time might be having a food crisis.
Speaker 4: The world is running out of many things that it needs. Fossil fuel for example is the classic example, but food. We are very very short of food and we have 2 thirds of the world under marriage to prove it.
Speaker 0: A report from the World Bank reads.
Speaker 2: What are we to say of a world in which millions of people are faced with day to day deprivations, that degrade human dignity to levels which no statistics can adequately describe.
Speaker 8: Many, many millions of people already starved to death in the world. Pollution is killing people, not very many. The health of a large number of urban dwellers are Being, is being decreased because of environmental deterioration.
Speaker 0: There is authoritative and growing evidence that we are polluting the planet.
Speaker 6: Generations will never take the sun. Year to 2000, early submission could melt the polar ice cap, Placing most of the left of
Speaker 7: the city in an adversity, a punitive situation.
Speaker 1: It turned out that the drinking water of the city in Buffalo, New York 9 preshipping amounts of nitric oxide. We don't know how heavily blue Perhaps it's related to people who breathe the dust.
Speaker 2: Is there evidence that the base forces shown in the model, are already at work in the world today? Some would say so, and go further. See the symptoms of growth in Vietnam and Bangladesh, in crime rates, and the state of the world's great cities.
Speaker 4: You look at the, the city. In America already, the city is falling apart from the center outwards So that, you can't walk in the center of the big American cities without, running great physical risks. They're covered in concrete, in cars. The poorer people can't get out of the center and therefore form ghettos, the problems are overwhelmingly bad. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the troubles we see are all part of this business of an overloaded society that doesn't know how to conduct itself any longer.
Speaker 1: We have to
Speaker 6: begin to solve
Speaker 1: the problem of drug abuse in this country right now.
Speaker 4: These are all symptoms of what Meadows is talking about, in my opinion. They're symptoms of instability, and that is what Meadows model is telling us.
Speaker 10: If one looks at the whole world, it is becoming better cultivated and more fully peopled than anciently. All places are now accessible, all open to commerce. And where once were hardly solitary cottages are now large cities. What most frequently meets our view is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, whilst nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance.
Our wants grow more and more keen and our complaints more bitter in all mouths. In every deed, Pestilence, famine and wars have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as a means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.
Speaker 2: Those words, were an eyewitness report made during the decline of the Roman Empire.
Speaker 0: A dark age is followed. If this study is right, then our society is threatened. No one knows when or how, but if it does mirror the world, if we can see in our problems the stresses of growth, then the world is unstable. Growth, it seems, has an awful logic.
Speaker 5: It is so obvious in a way, so simple To consider that we cannot continually and exponentially grow as we are doing now, nothing in the world, Nothing in life grows continuously.
Speaker 0: Growth leads to crisis.
Speaker 2: What then if we stopped getting richer?
Speaker 8: We're not talking so much about certainties as about risks which no modern society really should be willing to bear. It's almost as though one were playing Russian roulette, and there were a 20 chamber gun with 5 different kinds of bullets. One question could be, what kind of bullet is it that's going to get you? It seems to me a more appropriate question is do we even want to play Russian roulette?
Speaker 2: Is there an alternative to Russian roulette? Is it possible to produce a stable world? Were there policies which would create equilibrium a balanced world? They found that if you controlled everything including industrial production no crisis emerged but this assumes that we will stop getting richer.
Speaker 0: Population was stabilized by effective birth control from 1975. Food production is stabilized using modern techniques at a high level. The key factor, industrial growth, was levelled off in 1975, too, enabling pollution, also carefully controlled, to be kept within bounds. Resources carefully used are falling gradually.
Speaker 8: When these are implemented in 70, we see that the world system is capable of moving into a equilibrium society, a stable state system, which can be sustained as long as we analyze it, through the computer.
Speaker 2: What is being suggested Is that the only way to ensure the future for our grandchildren is to stop getting richer? Only then will there be the resources and the unpolluted world that they will need to survive.
Speaker 4: The classic assumption that economic growth was what society had to do is being proven wrong. It is obvious that our instabilities are caused by this Endless, attempt to increase output, call it just output. Now our attempts have got to be directed to looking after people who haven't got anything and to reorganize reorganizing our own society so that, it doesn't have this built in instability, which we now have because of the growth phenomenon.
Speaker 0: But we expect to get richer. Growth promises a better tomorrow. We all, the trade unionists, the politicians, the businessmen, all expect growth. But because we expect more, we are careless of what we have, Much of it. We junk.
Speaker 2: 70% of this tip should not be here. Here are the metals that we grow short of. Here is the oil we transformed into plastic. Here ends the forest we turned into paper. Resources our children may need, used to wrap up
Speaker 0: our food, to pretty our shopping.
Speaker 2: Nor has wealth solved many of our social problems. Tempted by the trivia of affluence, there's not enough money for housing or the poor.
Speaker 0: Often, old ecologically sound things like soap, wool, and glass have been replaced by detergents, synthetic fibres and plastics. The new ways not only pollute but use up resources we cannot replace. Detergents, for example, pollute rivers and use up oil.
Speaker 2: The benefits of growth are obvious. The costs obscure. At first, growth seems fine. Take the motor car for example. Motor cars provide an escape route from the concrete cities into the countryside.
They have provided 1,000,000 with the opportunity to travel, to explore, visit their friends.
Speaker 0: Congested ride. Too many cars have destroyed the very freedom that the motor car gave us. Now there's only 65 yards of road for each of Britain's motor cars. London's motorway plan will cost 2,000,000. That money could house 2 and a half 1000000 people and build 200 new schools.
Lead is a scarce metal. 40% of the world's lead production is added to petrol.
Speaker 2: A quarter of London is road.
Speaker 0: Vehicles produce 60% of our air pollution.
Speaker 2: Half of our children will have a car accident.
Speaker 0: Each year, accidents cost £320,000,000 and 7,000 lives.
Speaker 2: A car driven from lands end to generates as much oxygen as a man in a lifetime.
Speaker 0: To manufacture a car requires a 100,000 gallons of water. Each of these cars has used 2,500 pounds of steel, 54 pounds of zinc, £51 of lead, £32 of copper and some aluminium.
Speaker 2: When the study talks of equilibrium, It is talking about halting this kind of growth. The kind that consumes resources and pollutes the environment. But what would equilibrium be like for people?
Speaker 3: I think it could be extremely pleasant. We're not suggesting a deterioration of material standards as being necessary to an extent, which should in fact frighten many people. Many things can be organized great deal better materially now. For example, the cluttering of cities with cars, it's disadvantageous as great as its advantages. But I think that there is a possibility, the world has the possibilities with a little better distribution and organization or providing a decent life with flexibility and freedom for people.
But with enormous possibilities of leisure, social development, Artistic development. I think it could easily be a much, much richer life than we have today.
Speaker 8: There's going to have to be a shift away from an emphasis on material goods to 1 on the social services. There has to be a shift which views man as part of a total system rather than as man, a person who has been given a system for his exploitation.
Speaker 0: But the idea and dynamic of growth are deeply embedded in society. To stop it challenges some of the basic assumptions we make about ourselves and the world we live in.
Speaker 8: Alright.
Speaker 6: So, any any time We're gonna hire anybody
Speaker 2: Business is firmly based on the assumption of growth. To produce profit, to reinvest, and grow is quite literally its business.
Speaker 11: Juan, you in at 7900. Hello? How are you going to do that? For sale 600. 250 for sale.
Speaker 0: The poor of the world look to economic growth for a way out of their poverty And there's starvation.
Speaker 2: And for us, in the West, It gives us the increasing standard of living we've grown to expect. Our science and technology too, have been harnessed in the service of growth.
Speaker 0: Can such powerful drives, economic and political, social and personal, that support the idea of growth be redirected? What kind of changes must be made in our economic system, in our politics, in our minds how do we organize the world without growth?
Speaker 2: What must we change? Growth since the war has been created by improved technologies. They have provided us with cheaper goods and industrialists with larger profits. But the impact of science was one-sided. Most ecologists, including those with reservations about the study, agree on this.
Speaker 6: Most of the ecological difficulties that we face in United States, and I'm sure it's true in Britain too, have developed as a result of technological transformation since World War 2. This is the period in which the environmental crisis has become so intense. Now during that period, the US and, I think, also Britain Engaged in a very intense research program in biology and medicine. An unprecedented of unprecedented size and intensity. And so here we were, with an unprecedented research effort in biology.
And all the while, the biological system, on which we depend was being degraded without our being aware of it.
Speaker 0: Scientists were taking apart the world and looking at the parts. Industry, technology, took that knowledge and exploited it. But nobody was looking at what was happening to the whole system, at what the effect of these changes would eventually be. It was, quite simply, nobody's job.
Speaker 6: The main thing, I think, is that it's the dismemberment of science into isolated specialties and their failure to develop, so to speak, a complex pattern which matches the complexity of nature, which has kept science rather isolated from a problem like the environmental crisis Where nature exists as a whole.
Speaker 2: Do we need a science that looks less at the way things are and more the way that they relate and change?
Speaker 0: Can we create to technology consistent with nature.
Speaker 8: When we talk about shifting to equilibrium, we're not talking about shifting to a state which will lock in the poor areas to a permanently inferior status. I personally don't believe there's any possibility of having a viable long term solution, which leaves such glaring disequalities.
Speaker 4: Well, we must expect the 3rd world to fight for their share of the cake. It is completely absurd to think that they are going to stop growing when they haven't got a thing. So I believe that, Unless the rich part of the world makes a careful plan and begins to spend real money In, adjusting the balance between the 2, there will be absolute uproar, and I mean physical Violence, it's inevitable unless these plans are made.
Speaker 2: Our development has proved unstable. What form will their development now take?
Speaker 0: And if equilibrium means equality between nations, does it mean more equality within nations?
Speaker 4: Well, this is going to be a very difficult one because businesses always gone ahead on the assumption that they're going to be bigger and more profitable than last year, and I don't think that this can possibly go on. And businesses have got to stabilize themselves along with everything else in society.
Speaker 6: My feeling is that since Environmental analysis, along with many other things, reveals to me anyway that The private enterprise system is simply incapable of staying off a suicidal course That the system will simply have to be changed.
Speaker 11: Bill Marsh. Yeah. Quote inside the Boman cabinet preferred.
Speaker 0: Can business as we know it survive the transition?
Speaker 11: On what, common? Defer.
Speaker 2: If so, how will it be changed?
Speaker 0: If not, what will replace it?
Speaker 11: At 9, blast 78. Burgess, 3858.
Speaker 2: So what do we do about population? How will we control our desires to have children?
Speaker 0: How do we change the idea that population control is for other people, usually the poor?
Speaker 2: Today, the economy has to grow by about 2% Just to keep people in work. Without growth, there would be less work of the kind we do today. Work, for good or bad, is what most people now do most of the time. In the stable state, Work will become much less important.
Speaker 9: A lot
Speaker 4: of things like this have got to change. I think that it's high time we gave up the Sure. It's a notion that work is the only good, and found ways of organizing societies so that people could do more or less what they wanted. After all, automation will take care of work if you plan it that way.
Speaker 0: There might be more subtle changes With less work, with fewer children, with different patterns of consumption, family life might change. To conserve resources, things like motor cars washing machines might be shared by larger groups of people.
Speaker 4: I'd like to see people experimenting with, like, communes, things of this kind, Because unless we make those experiments, we are not going to be able to adjust to this different kind of world.
Speaker 8: It's important, I think, to realize when we talk about this stable state, that that describes a large number of possible alternatives. We're not talking about some uniform society which would blanket the globe. Certainly not talking about that type of uniformity. We're talking about a system in which the various balances between material output and population can be engineered more or less to suit the particular objectives of a society.
Speaker 0: Equilibrium will be a very different world. It could also be a very varied world, A world with all kinds of societies. But they will all be societies radically different from ours. If it is right, And this study forewarns us of a watershed in human history.
Speaker 4: It's wholly revolutionary in its very nature. Hitherto, we've had revolutions thrust upon us by people who couldn't stand it any longer And then there is bloodshed and all sorts of horrors. Now, we now know, I contend, that we have to have a revolution And we ought to be able to plan it.
Speaker 8: Let's not overlook the fact that human society has gone through a number of revolutions in their implications, Even perhaps more profound than the one we're talking about today. Just at the dawn of of history, of men's history, we saw a transformation from hunting and gathering and nomadism to settled agriculture. The impact of that on man's religion, on his institutions, on his view of himself We're enormously profound. The shift from rural to industrialized man has been an enormous change. The shift from a primarily agricultural to a primarily Urban population has an enormous impact.
Speaker 2: Our own society reflects its origins, the Industrial Revolution. That revolution molded our institutions, changed our politics, and shaped our lives. The stability revolution, the equilibrium revolution, whatever future historians choose to call it, will also shape and change the way we live.
Speaker 0: The study has a sting in its tail. We're short of time. We have to act soon to keep our options open. This study and others show that there's a point beyond which it is difficult to pull back from disaster.
Speaker 7: I'm a layman, but I've received a lot of scientific evidence. And my impression of that evidence is clearly that the decisions which man takes In the next, in the next decade or 2, this coming generation are really going to determine his future. Many of these things are going to be difficult, if not impossible to reverse, if we are not prepared to face them and to reorient Our activities and our attitudes, on a global scale, if we're and I think that that is possible, but it's probably the biggest single task that mankind has ever faced.
Speaker 8: We can maintain for ourselves today a very much higher material standard of living, But at a cost, very likely, of decreasing the option which exist for people 50 or a 100 years from now, our children and our grandchildren. So this dilemma between satisfying needs in the short term and satisfying them over the long is perhaps the most fundamental one that comes out.
Speaker 2: If that is the case, then what can we do now?
Speaker 3: It's important that everyone should Have a concept of the world as a whole and should avoid as far as possible, bringing up their children in any sense of Local patriotism, nationalism,
Speaker 8: and parochialism. It's important for you, I think, to realize that you have really the right only to have 2 children, to expect that you're going to have to make short term sacrifices if they're to have a decent environment and the resources necessary to pursue the kind of life that they should have.
Speaker 7: 1st of all, inform yourself. 1st of all, become interested. Then let your political leaders, both locally and nationally, know that you're interested and show them that you're informed. Then look at your own habits as consumers, as producers, and the things that you do in your daily life and ask yourself What effect they're having on the whole problem? Are they making a positive contribution?
Or are you part of the problem?
Speaker 8: Is it necessary to buy the kinds of products that you do? And isn't it possible perhaps to use them somewhat longer and slow down the flow of material goods through your household?
Speaker 5: This transition from The present type of society for the new society, which will be balanced with its environment and within depends on all of us, on all of you, and that will require political action.
Speaker 4: And then, for the first time in the history of man, have the opportunity to design the society they want And the resources to put that into effect, that is the guts of the matter to me. We have to think out just what society do we want. We can have it, you know.
Speaker 0: We have to imagine what world we would like.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, it seems our children could live our dreams.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a Club of Rome member, envisions a civil depopulation of the planet to one billion people, reducing today's population by 87.5%. The planet can sustain up to two billion people, depending on liberty and material consumption. More liberty and consumption require fewer people, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate eight or nine billion. Visit wideawakemedia.com for similar content. Check out the best-selling T-shirt collection at wideawakeclothing.com (discount code: TWITTER15).
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Dennis Meadows, a prominent member of the Club of Rome, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to just one billion people—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that having more liberty and consumption requires fewer people, while a strong dictatorship with a low standard of living could accommodate a larger population. However, the speaker emphasizes the importance of freedom and a high standard of living. They hope for a slow and relatively equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. The speaker admits that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
T-shirt available here: https://wideawake.clothing/collections/best-sellers-tshirts?filter.v.price.gte=&filter.v.price.lte=&sort_by=best-selling Use discount code 'TWITTER15' for 15% off (first 20 customers only)!
Best Sellers (T-Shirts)
Some of our best selling t-shirts. Click here for our best selling hoodies.
wideawake.clothing
reSee.it AI Summary
UN Messenger of Peace Jane Goodall emphasizes the need to address global population growth. She suggests reducing the population to 450 million, a 95% decrease from today. Goodall believes many problems stem from overpopulation, which didn't exist 500 years ago. Source: [YouTube link]. For more content, visit [website]. #WorldEconomicForum #UnitedNations #DepopulationAgenda
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking on a World Economic Forum panel, UN "Messenger of Peace", Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million—a 95% reduction from today's population: "We cannot hide away from human population growth. Because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9XKm0MUIJQs… Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #WorldEconomicForum #UnitedNations #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
We should reduce meat consumption and halt the use of land for cattle and animal feed production. Additionally, we cannot ignore the issue of human population growth, as it contributes to many other problems. If the population size resembled that of 500 years ago, the challenges we discuss would not be as significant.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need to eat less meat. We need to to stop land being used for cattle and growing grain for the billions of animals that we keep in our intensive farms. And then finally, we cannot we cannot hide away from human population growth because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there were if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.
reSee.it AI Summary
Renowned primatologist Jane Goodall, speaking at the World Economic Forum, suggests reducing the global population to 450 million, a drastic 95% decrease. Goodall believes that overpopulation is at the root of numerous global issues. She argues that addressing this problem is crucial for resolving other pressing challenges.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking on a World Economic Forum panel, UN "Messenger of Peace", Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million—a 95% reduction from today's population. "We cannot hide away from human population growth. Because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9XKm0MUIJQs Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #WorldEconomicForum #UnitedNations #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
We should reduce meat consumption and halt the use of land for cattle and animal feed production. Additionally, we cannot ignore the issue of human population growth, as it contributes to many other problems. If the population size resembled that of 500 years ago, many of the challenges we face today would not exist.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need to eat less meat. We need to to stop land being used for cattle and growing grain for the billions of animals that we keep in our intensive farms. And then, finally, we cannot we cannot hide away from human population growth because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there were if There was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Renowned primatologist and UN "Messenger of Peace," Jane Goodall, suggests reducing the global population to 450 million, a drastic 95% decrease. Goodall emphasizes that population growth lies at the root of numerous global issues. She believes that reverting to the population size of 500 years ago would alleviate many of the challenges we face today.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking at the WEF, UN "Messenger of Peace", Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million—a 95% reduction from today's population: "We cannot hide away from human population growth. Because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9XKm0MUIJQs Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
We must reduce meat consumption and halt the use of land for cattle and animal feed production in intensive farms. Additionally, we cannot ignore the issue of human population growth, as it is the root cause of many other problems. If our population size resembled that of 500 years ago, the challenges we face today would not be as significant.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need to eat less meat. We need to to stop land being used for cattle and growing grain for the billions of animals that we keep in our intensive farms. And then, finally, we cannot we cannot hide away from human population growth because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there were if There was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, suggests a significant reduction in the global population to ensure sustainability. He believes the planet can support around one to two billion people, depending on the desired level of liberty and material consumption. Meadows implies that fewer people are necessary for greater freedom and consumption, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate a larger population.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Key Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://www.wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that the global population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that a strong dictatorship could potentially support 8 to 9 billion people, but it is not desirable due to the lack of freedom and low standard of living. The speaker hopes for a slow and equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. They admit that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a, a civil way. And I mean civil in a in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have? If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. Conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid. So, But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience, and then you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Ted Turner, in an interview 15 years ago, suggested that a population decline of 95% to 250-300 million people would be ideal to address overpopulation and climate change. However, the author questions the motives behind such proposals and criticizes the ideas put forth by Turner and others, suggesting an anti-human agenda.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner This interview with Charlie Rose was from 15 years ago, and he said that the changes needed to be made to save humanity from impending collapse from overpopulation and climate change would need to come in the next 15-20 years and require global cooperation from every country. Well it's 15 years later and we're still here, listening to the same criminal eugenicists like Ted argue for reduced consumption of meat, more abortions, geoengineering and solar radiation management programs to block the sun, worsening fertility, and all the other anti-human agenda goals iterated by the WEF and their degenerate colleagues. The one question that always lingers in my mind is whether or not these people actually believe the words coming out of their mouth and that overpopulation is the problem, or if there is another subversive evil motivation behind the push beyond just saving the earth.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the credit crisis and believes it is a mess because people borrowed too much money on their houses. They emphasize the importance of having equity in one's home and saving money. They also talk about the need to mobilize and change the energy system to combat global warming. They mention the potential benefits of this change, such as job creation and clean air. The speaker warns that not taking action will lead to catastrophic consequences like extreme heat, crop failure, and societal breakdown. They compare not addressing these issues to committing suicide. The speaker expresses optimism that the world can come to its senses and make the necessary changes for the sake of future generations. They use a baseball analogy to illustrate the need to hold the opposition and score runs to win the game. They call for smart political leaders and criticize ineffective leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When you think of the credit crisis we're in now?
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's a mess.
Speaker 0: And why is it a mess?
Speaker 1: Well, I because I think what happened is people were borrowing too much money on their houses. I I you know? Doing that. I don't my house is paid for. I mean, it has been.
I mean, I I I don't believe you know, I think having equity in your home is a good thing. I I don't believe in spending every penny. Yeah. When I was making $80 a week after taxes were taken out of 20 when I was 21. I saved $10 a week and lived on $70.
I mean, I've I've always saved. I I believe that was the thing. That was one of my father taught me that too.
Speaker 0: What's possible? Tell me what's possible to do that
Speaker 1: in 15 or 20 years, we could completely redo it. If we we have to mobilize if this is how important it is and and how how how important that we do it quickly. We have to mobilize the same way we did when we entered World War 2 in 1941. We have to fully mobilize everything we have and put it into changing the energy system over and not just here in the United States but all over the world. It's gonna be the business business biggest business project in the history of the world.
Fortunes, 1,000,000,000 of dollars are gonna be made. Hundreds of thousands of people were gonna be employed. We're gonna have clean air. We're gonna have so many benefits from it. It's not gonna cost us anything.
Like, once we get going with it, it's not gonna cost us anything. Only the people that don't don't understand it think it's gonna not doing it will be catastrophic. Will have 8 degrees will be 8 degrees hotter in 10 not 10, but in 30 or 40 years. And basically, none of the crops will grow, most of people who have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.
What the few people left will be living in a in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad. There'll be no more corn growing. It it will not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons is suicide.
So we've gotta stop doing the 2 suicidal things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons And
Speaker 0: global
Speaker 1: and and then after that, we've got to we've got to stabilized the population. When I was born, there
Speaker 0: was too What's wrong with the population? I mean
Speaker 1: With too many people. That's what that's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. But they If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff. If we don't get global warming and the nuclear weapons tried that we don't have to worry about human rights.
Well, all the humans will all be gone.
Speaker 0: You know? Okay. Do you think we'll do it? I mean, are you optimistic in the end
Speaker 1: I have country
Speaker 0: that the world will come to its senses?
Speaker 1: Behalf of my grandchildren and the children all over the world, I absolutely think we gotta do it, but I have a way of explaining it very simply. I see a human situation I like into a baseball game. It's in the 7th inning, and we're down by 1 run. What so we're backs to are to the
Speaker 0: wall. Right.
Speaker 1: What we have to do though in the next 2 innings, the game's not over. It's still winnable.
Speaker 0: But what we've got
Speaker 1: to do is hold them right where they are with our best pitcher.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And we've got to get a couple runs on the base.
Speaker 0: Get a man on the base.
Speaker 1: And then get them in. Get them in. And that ties it, and then another run to go ahead, and we win. That's where we are. We're we're in a tough situation, but we can play our way out of it if we do the right things.
It's time for smart political leaders. No more dummies. We can't afford dumb
Speaker 0: leadership.
reSee.it AI Summary
Jane Goodall, speaking at the WEF, suggests reducing the global population to 450 million, emphasizing that overpopulation is the root cause of many problems. She believes that the world would be better off with a population size similar to 500 years ago.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Speaking at the WEF, UN "Messenger of Peace", Jane Goodall, advocates reducing the global population down to 450 million—a 95% reduction from today's population: "We cannot hide away from human population growth. Because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9XKm0MUIJQs Follow our backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
We must reduce meat consumption and halt the use of land for cattle farming and growing feed for billions of animals in intensive farms. Additionally, we cannot ignore the issue of human population growth, as it is at the root of many other problems. If the population size resembled that of 500 years ago, the challenges we discuss would not be as significant.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need to eat less meat. We need to to stop land being used for cattle and growing grain for the billions of animals that we keep in our intensive farms. And then finally, we cannot we cannot hide away from human population growth because, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there were if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, suggests that the planet can sustain a population of one to two billion people, depending on the desired level of liberty and material consumption. He believes that achieving this reduction can be done peacefully. Meadows also mentions that a stronger dictatorship could potentially accommodate a larger population.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg Follow my backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to me on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to my newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Globally, we are consuming more than the planet can sustain, and it will eventually come crashing down. The speaker hopes for a peaceful decline in population and consumption, where conflicts are resolved without violence. They believe the planet can support around 1-2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. However, having a smart dictatorship with a low standard of living could accommodate even more people. Ideally, the decline should be slow and equal, ensuring that everyone shares the experience rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing their will. These hopes may seem pessimistic, but that's what the future holds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a in a special way. Peaceful. Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways.
And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people? Maybe 2,000,000,000 depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid. So, But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1,000,000,000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience, and then you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
Club Of Rome Unveils Plan To Cull Billions From The World Population This globalist cult wants every last human dead to reduce that pesky CO2 so they can have the planet all to themselves. https://t.co/DS9li8tn0P
Video Transcript AI Summary
Companies and governments need to prioritize long-term sustainability peacefully. Agriculture must play a key role in achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Transitioning to a low-energy lifestyle is crucial for a sustainable future. TerraPower is developing a nuclear power plant to combat climate change. The push for net zero faces challenges from coal use in China and India. Iodine deficiency is a major global issue addressed by X3 iodine supplement. Visit infowarsstore.com for discounted products supporting the broadcast.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It will be a big revolution to bring companies and governments to really give importance to the long term. That would be a revolution. I hope that it can occur in a a a civil way. I I and I mean civil in a peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through to force.
Speaker 1: We can't get to net zero. We don't get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. I
Speaker 0: mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship and a low standard of living. You can have a buddy. But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're gonna have a 1,000,000,000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. So a key issue here is the speed of the decline.
We hope for a slow decline because that gives you time to adjust. So a a key question is what is the force that we're trying to adjust to? And if we know the speed, then that tells us something about kind of revolution we need. So we need personal revolutions. We need people to reimagine a lifestyle which, requires much less energy and material.
A minister of, let's say, agriculture would do something which actually makes the farming situation seem worse in the That would be a a hard revolution. We we need all of those, kinds of things.
Speaker 2: The British government with their top universities and government institutions has put out a report called absolute zero where they don't wanna just have net zero increase in carbon or lower it to a previous state. They wanna get rid of all carbon, which humans are.
Speaker 3: But because we need to get to 0 emissions by 2050, we have to come
Speaker 1: up with an alternate way, which isn't too much more expensive
Speaker 4: to perform those same activities without emitting any greenhouse gases. People began to talk about a world in which greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas removals balanced each other out so that the overall effect was net 0.
Speaker 5: We'll need to go from a world economy that pumps out on the order of 40,000,000,000 tons of c o two a year to one that sucks down, that is removes billions of tons per year in the future to get to that net zero future.
Speaker 2: Bill Gates and his 17 year old energy company, TerraPower, are planning their first cutting edge nuclear power plant.
Speaker 3: So this company TerraPower that, I'm I'm very involved in, it is talking with Chinese partners. It's signed, some, agreements where the pilot plant, there's a good chance it will be built first in China, but then it will be for global usage. I don't use some of the, less proven, approaches. Such as? I don't plant trees.
Speaker 4: Some people would even say
Speaker 6: that if you just planted enough trees, it could take care of the climate issue altogether. And that's complete nonsense. Okay.
Speaker 3: I mean, are we the science people or are we the idiots? Like, which one do we wanna be?
Speaker 7: 50 years ago, nearly everybody considered unlimited growth as the only pathway to greater prosperity for all. And then there came a group of young scientists and showed that there are indeed limits to growth. That truly was a revolution.
Speaker 0: If we begin making really drastic changes, we can reverse, the growth pressures and try to bring the system back down under the capacity, which can be supported, by the planet.
Speaker 8: But we don't burn coal anymore because we didn't just close down our coal fired power stations. We blew them up. At the same time, China is, even as we speak, building the equivalent of 2 new coal fired power stations a week. India has a vast expansion program of coal fired power stations. Everything that we do is completely blotted out by what other much larger countries are doing to maintain their own power.
Now if you want to live in a country with net zero, if you want to live in a country where nobody can afford to heat their house, where people have incredibly expensive and largely non functioning heat pumps inflicted on them, if you want lots of people to lose their jobs because there's no energy, if you wanna be cold all the time, if you want the computers which make life possible, in fact, every form of life, to shut down every so often, then carry on believing that the the the the demand to to to go for net zero, to keep it in the ground is intelligent and thoughtful.
Speaker 2: It it's it's so nightmarish that it it's it's just hard to describe, what they're doing other than total futilism, the end of civilization.
Speaker 3: Can you explain a little bit about how this, technology works? Okay. Basically And then you're just among friends here. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: You shouldn't purchase the products at infowarsstore.com just because it keeps us on the air. You should get these products because they are game changing. Everybody knows our information. It's some of the most hardcore accurate intel on the planet. Well, our products are absolutely no different.
They are amazing. They are the missing links people need. And of all the deficiencies that are out there, one of the biggest problems on the planet is iodine deficiency. Just look up iodine deficiency on Wikipedia. More than 2,000,000,000 people that UN estimates have major cognitive disabilities because they haven't had iodine.
It is essential in all electrochemical activity in the body, but most iodine in plants or in meat is bound to other compounds or other elements. So you don't get the full absorption. Not with x 3. It has all 3 of the healthy types of iodine in it. The good halogens, the deep earth crystal, pure nascent iodine, and then 2 other types the scientists tell us help with absorption.
X3 has been sold out for 6 months. It's now back in stock for 40% off at infowarsstore.com and it funds the broadcast and everything else we do. So I wanna encourage you all to get your X3 for 40% off now at infowarsstore.com. Takes about 2 weeks to kick in, but almost everybody has incredible results. Separately, we have another great product, 10 hour clean energy, turbo force available discounted at infowarsstore.com as well.
It's discounted as well despite the fact we're about to sell out. So whether it's X3 Next Level Iodine or whether it's TurboForce 10 hours of energy, they're both available discounted right now atimpolewarstore.com. It funds the broadcast, and it's game changing. Take action now.
reSee.it AI Summary
Aurelio Peccei, in "The Chasm Ahead" from 1969, proposed three solutions for the issue of "surplus humans": a biological germ or virus, mass sterilization, and the elimination of all surplus humans. It makes me wonder what stage we are currently at regarding these ideas.
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei in "The Chasm Ahead" London 1969 Peccei gives 3 "solutions" to the problem of "surplus humans" in 1969: 1. Biological "germ or virus" 2. "Mass sterilization" 3. "Elimination of all surplus humans" What stage are we at?
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
https://archive.org/details/chasmahead0000pecc/page/174/mode/1up?q=control&view=theater
The chasm ahead : Peccei, Aurelio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xvi, 297 p. : 22 cm
archive.org
@DarrenPlymouth - Darren of Plymouth
The Committee of 300 by Dr John Coleman The plan to halve the world population by 2050. A must listen. Link to the book is in the thread. Please repost. https://t.co/WiGDLx7u9t
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker presents a message of alarm and action, arguing that anarchy in Washington DC stems from the federal government seizing powers and passing unconstitutional laws, with men acting as though they are above the Constitution. He claims a supranational, clandestine power structure governs world events.
Key claim: a Committee of Three Hundred (also known in intelligence circles as the Olympians) consists of 300 men who run the world and who are sworn to secrecy. The speaker says he discovered this while in Africa, finding documents labeled above top-secret that revealed the committee’s influence. He asserts that the descendants of the British East India Company control The United States today, and that the 300 men govern global affairs with equal voting rights and no outvoting.
The speaker traces the committee’s roots and influence to the British East India Company, opium profits, and a global elite. He asserts that in India House in London he found manifests showing opium trade profits that dwarned major carmakers’ profits for certain years, and that the 300 govern from Venice’s black nobility families (the Lucatis, the Rekanates, the Volpe Dumiserratis), boasting wealth that would make figures like David Rockefeller seem modest. He claims those families still run the world and name every member in his book The Committee of 300 and, later, in socialism, the road to slavery.
The scope of control is described as worldwide and multi-branch: the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA, aka Chatham House) is the executive arm; the Club of Rome, the Seni Foundation, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Order of Saint John are tapped as executive arms; the RIIA allegedly instructs U.S. policy through the Morgan Guarantee & Trust Bank, with Dennis Weatherstone as a conduit to the Secretary of State and then the President.
The speaker alleges the Gulf War was orchestrated by Margaret Thatcher (in Aspen Institute) to instruct George Bush, framing it as unconstitutional and driven by an international agenda. He asserts that the Club of Rome (through Aurelio Peccei) sought to destroy U.S. industry and agriculture, citing Bertrand Russell’s influence and writings on overpopulation. He claims the Club of Rome’s “Zero Growth” post-industrial plan aimed to destroy the American middle class, destroy U.S. industries, and push a socialist transformation.
Global 2000 is described as a Club of Rome genocide blueprint targeting mass population reduction by 2050, aimed particularly at decimating the U.S. middle class and other populations. The speaker links AIDS, HIV-era and other outbreaks to this plan, alleging deliberate creation and dissemination of pathogens via Fort Detrick, the World Health Organization, and other bodies, with assertions of experiments (CAB, Lassa fever, etc.) and a later shift to other viruses like HIV/AIDS, cholera, malaria, and black plague, all framed as part of population control under the global plan. He claims vaccines and viral campaigns in Africa and Brazil were weaponized to decimate populations, while the “black nobility” finances these operations through London and Venice.
The speaker asserts that a vast network of bankers, insurance companies, mining conglomerates, and political organizations—including the Democrat Party in the U.S.—are controlled by the 300 and their secret society apparatus ( Illuminati, Society of the Cincinnati, etc.). He contends the strongest arm is the Club of Rome, and that the RIA/Club of Rome manipulated U.S. presidents through PMs, MI6, and other foreign controllers. He gives examples: Lincoln’s assassination, Wilson’s presidency, Kennedy’s murder, and later U.S. policy under Bush, Clinton, and others, as outcomes of control by London and the RIIA.
The speaker contends that intelligence and political leadership are predetermined by the 300, not elected by the people. He argues the President and Secretary of State are chosen by the Royal Institute for International Affairs, not directly by the American electorate. He cites MacArthur, Dean Rusk, and Truman as exemplars of subversion by an international power structure that guides U.S. foreign policy.
In closing, the speaker asserts the Constitution is immutable, condemns what he sees as creeping socialism, and calls for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve and a severing of the concord between the 50 states and the federal government. He frames the situation as a war to the death for the United States, urging Americans to reclaim state sovereignty and reject what he characterizes as unconstitutional measures, arguing that the United States consists of 50 nations with rights to dissolve the federal government if necessary.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you a message of hope, not fear. A message that I hope will galvanize us all into much needed action. The problem is quite simple. Anarchy and chaos prevails in Washington DC because the federal government has seized powers to which it is not entitled to and is passing masses of laws that are 100% unconstitutional. And when you get men setting themselves up as greater than the constitution of The United States, you get anarchy and eventually tyranny.
It's taken me twenty five years to come to the conclusion that I have come to, and I want to tell you that one of the biggest things I discovered in my work was the existence of a supranational committee composed of 300 men. I came across this quite by accident when I was serving in Africa in Angola, and I was given a series of documents which were only supposed to be handed in to top level people. They were what we call above the top level of classification of intelligence documents. And there I discovered that whilst I thought I was in Africa fighting against the invasion of the communists, I was, in fact, fighting to introduce socialist regimes in the black African countries, and that I was actually working for a committee called the Committee of Three Hundred, also known in intelligence circles as the Olympians. In my book, the Committee of Three Hundred, which took twenty years of research, and incidentally, I was only a little bit behind with Karl Marx.
He spent thirty years in the British Museum in London where he got most of his things from. I point out that the British East India Company was the most powerful trading company in the world. They made their massive monies out of the dope trade. They first grew prime poppies in Kew Gardens in Kensington, London, got the best producing opium poppies. They then shipped them to binaries in India where they began a massive plantation of poppies, opium producing poppies.
They then used their famous tea clippers to transport the poppies in the form of raw opium to China. And by their military force, they imposed an opium policy on China that turned the Chinese nation into a nation of addicts. And they enforced this policy, which was known to the royal family and lord Gladstone, the prime minister, and every one of the lords and ladies in England. And they made a massive huge fortune In researching these documents in India House in London, I came across some of the manifests of the old tea clippers and the numbers of kegs of opium they carried in the values. And I totaled up to these things, and I found to my astonishment that if we took 1970 as an optimum year for profits in General Motors and Ford, in one year, the opium trade with China was three times the profits of the combined profits of Ford and General Motors in 1917.
And this was shared by 300 people. That was the committee that ran the British East India Company. They all had equal voting rights. They could not outvote each other, and, of course, they were sworn to secrecy. The descendants of the British East India Company today run The United States.
These 300 men in the committee of 300 still run the world today with an iron fist. Their wealth is untold, cannot be measured. I know I looked at some of the the records that I could find in Italy, in Rome. I've done most of my work on location, and this has always been invaluable to me. And I came across the families in Italy who were called the funding, meaning the people who had all the money.
They were all members of the Committee of three hundred, the Lucatis, the Rekinates, the Volpe Dumiserratis. These people are so wealthy that they would make David Rockefeller look like a piker. That is how rich they are, and this is the committee that runs the world. Now in my book, the committee of three hundred, I name every one of them. This is not a book that talks about they.
It gives you specifics. And I must say I do the same thing in my new book, socialism, the road to slavery, which was ten years in researching. On 07/04/1789, George Washington told the congress, it is necessary for us to impose tariffs to protect the manufacturers of our colonies. That was the first trade barrier. Now let us dispose for once and for all with the words that have been implanted on our minds like isolationist and you are for restricted trade and you are against global trade, The United States Of America did not grow great on global trade.
The United States Of America grew great on the hard labor of the people who lived in those days and the wise protection barriers put up by president George Washington. Because immediately after the war, they tried the British to try to down The United States through so called free trade, which is nothing but piracy. Free trade, ladies and gentlemen, is a one way street which allows other countries to dump their products on our markets to the detriment of our own people. That's what free trade is. It's strictly a one way street.
The trade barriers were increased by Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, and all three presidents paid with their lives for that policy. Disraeli was particularly incensed with Lincoln. Disraeli was the British prime minister at the time. And he ordered British I MI six to assassinate Lincoln, which is what they did. The same way as British MI six publicly executed president John F.
Kennedy at a later time. Our founding fathers and our presidents saw the value of trade barriers. They realized that we, if we wanted to progress, were not to be the dumping ground of the world. And I'm going to leave that subject for now and return to it later. The format that I want to use this morning is the type of questions that are most often asked of me.
I've spoken to hundreds of thousands of people across The United States and worldwide, And I've been on many, many radio shows. And these type of questions, we note them, and this is what comes up most of all. Who and what is the Committee of three hundred? Well, I've dealt with that. I've told you this is a supranational body that knows no boundaries, respects the laws of no countries.
The first time that they were publicly announced was by a German socialist by the name of Walter Raffinau. Now I'll give you some background of Walter Rathenau. He was the financial adviser to the Kaiser of Germany, and he was also the financial adviser to the Rothschilds, the French family Rothschilds. So he must have known what he's talking about. He made an astonishing statement in 1934.
He said there is a committee of 300 men that rule the world. They are known only to each other, and nothing happens without their consent. When former head of state Mikhail visited The United States a few years ago, flanked by George Bush and quail, he opened his foundation in The United States. And he left slip. He said, this is being done with approval of the Committee of three hundred.
CNN cameras were on him. They immediately switched. Now I wrote to CNN, and I said, could I have a transcript of this program, which they said was available, I never got a reply. I followed it up with letter after letter, but nothing ever came of it. The point I'm trying to make, ladies and gentlemen, is that the federal government, the secret upper level parallel government that runs The United States, does not want you to know that you have an upper level parallel government that calls the shots, that dictates what is going to happen to your life and mine.
So that's how I found out about the Committee of the three hundred. The next question is what are their goals? Their goals are a one world government, latterly called the New World Order. The one world government began with King George the third. At the time that the colonists were brave enough to take him on, King George was already busy formulating a one world government, and he had lined up at least 50 countries that were willing to come into this future world dictatorship with him.
The goals then, very simply stated, are to make the world over into a one world, new world order dictatorship controlled utterly and completely by this committee of 300. How can they possibly carry out their goals? That's the next question that I'm often asked. They do it by dint and by virtue of their fantastic wealth and the fact that they control thousands of the top banking institutions, the political organizations, insurance companies. In fact, one of the giant insurance companies, a man called me and said, do you mean to tell me that they are controlling the metropolitan of New York?
I said, the metropolitan of New York is Peanuts. He said, how can you say that? That's a giant American company. I said, well, compared with the Securrenzi de Generali de Venezia, it's Peanuts. That's the biggest insurance company in the world.
They control that organization. Everything that happens in the world in the insurance field comes out of Venice. That's why Venice is so important because in Venice, we have the black nobility. Now that has nothing to do with the color of the skin of the people, and I'm going to come back to them as we go along. So the goals are a one world dictatorship of the most brutal kind.
And how they carry it out is they have these interface banks, insurance companies, mining conglomerates, every conceivable control in politics, including the Democrat Party the United States, which is, of course, since 1980 behind closed doors at a secret caucus in Washington DC, the Democrat hierarchy took on the goals of the old Socialist Party USA, I. E, based upon the communist manifesto of 1848. If you have a copy of my book, and I'm not pushing it, but in my book, The Committee of 300, I list every one of their huge, gigantic corporations, how they interface. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an eye opener because it gets right down to the nitty gritty of your everyday life in the cities and towns across The United States. So they carry out their goals through existing organizations.
And also, of course, they have built up some special organizations of their own. When I first started writing in America when I came here in 1969, I revealed the existence of an organization called the Royal Institute for International Affairs, which is located at Chatham House in 10 Saint James Square in London. I also revealed the existence of the Club of Rome, the Seni Foundation, the Monteloran Society, the Order of Saint John, which was known but not known. And I listed all of these secret societies that run the world as executive arms of the Committee of three hundred. So it controls the world through all of these.
The Royal Institute for International Affairs is the executive arm of this committee which gives instructions to the United States government to this very day. The chain of command is as follows. Every secretary of state that has been appointed since 1919 is appointed by the Royal Institute for International Affairs. That may come as a shock for you. You think you vote and you put a conservative in the White House, And then he appoints supposedly or allegedly conservative people to carry out the policies that you wanted him to implement.
Surprise. Surprise. I ask you to find me a conservative secretary of state since 1919. And if you search diligently and apply the correct rules, you will come up blank. Every one of the secretaries of state was chosen in London by the secretary of state, as was Wilson, the president Wilson, as was Roosevelt, as was James Earl Carter.
He was specially chosen because he'd had three mental breakdowns, They felt he would be a good guy to manipulate. Oh, I'm talking facts. I'll tell you the story of that. In my World in Review news magazine, I wrote that James I'm digressing a bit here, but it's necessary to do that now and then. It's not a sign of a bad speaker, although I don't put any laurels around my own neck.
But James Earl Carter was not a known entity in American scene. I first heard of him through my intelligence contacts, particularly my French sources, who are one of the best in the world after MI six. And he told me, your next president is going to be a peanut farmer from Georgia. And I said, how come? He said, right now, they're meeting at the Dorchester Hotel in London.
And if you get your penny over there, he said, you'll find that there's a lot of goings on you might like to look at. And lo and behold, that's what was happening. The Royal Institute for International Affairs had ordered David Rockefeller to find a candidate who was totally weak, preferably a little mentally weak. And they put one of the greatest brainwashing specialists in the world, trained by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, Doctor. Peter Born, on the job.
And he said, it's funny you should say that. One of my patients is a guy from Georgia, James Earl Carter. And this guy can't take rejections, and he's been to me three times for a nervous breakdown. So they hiked Carter over to London and faded him at the Dorchester Hotel, which is a very ritzy place. And they faded him and wine and dine him.
And the next thing we saw, Time News wake every newspaper in the country, James Earl Carter. Now we, in our little magazine, World in Review, we told those of our subscribers, this man is your next president. We also did exactly the same thing with William Jefferson Clinton because we had the story of the club of Rome. We knew who Agnelli was. We knew that Agnelli had had a huge love affair with missus Pamela Harriman, and that missus Pamela Harriman was the doyen of the Democrat party, and missus Harriman been given a task of finding the next president of The United States a socialist.
And she picked up Clinton and said, you're our boy. But there's one snag. Clinton went up there brushing his forelock back and said, well, you know, there's one problem. My wife left me. So missus Harriman was dumbfounded.
She said, well, you better get this back in a hurry. And he said, no. She doesn't wanna come back to me because of my thrice with other woman. That's how he put it. My philanderings would have been a better word, but he said thrice with other woman.
So missus Harriman sent for missus Clinton, and she duly came to New York. And she sat her down and said, look. If you want to be the first lady of the lady of America with all the attendant prestige and power, you better forget about your husband's philanderings and get right back to him. And that is precisely what happened. And when I heard that had happened, I knew this guy was the next president.
And we wrote that in our news magazine. And sure enough, a year later, here came marching into the scene, William Jefferson Clinton. So the RIA, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, does control everything that happens in The United States. They give their orders to the Morgan Guarantee and Trust Bank on Wall Street. And the chief executive officer of that organization is Dennis Weatherstone.
And he duly relays the orders over to the Secretary of State, whoever that happens to be. And he then relays the orders to the president. There was one exception to this, and that was during the illegal 100% unconstitutional Gulf War. Now I'm gonna use a word, and I apologize to the ladies for this, but I need to tell you this graphically to illustrate the power that the Royal Institute for International Affairs exercises over the affairs of The United States Of America. When George Bush was hesitating and didn't know whether he should get into The Gulf or not, the prime minister of Britain, missus Margaret Thatcher, came over to the committee of head of three hundred headquarters at the Aspen Institute Colorado, and this is the phone call that she had with George Bush.
She said, George, this is Margaret. Apologies to you, ladies president. Get your ass up here. I've got some orders for you about the Gulf War. And Bush went scurrying up there like a little messenger boy.
And the next thing we know, there was this massive outpouring of propaganda to start a war against the nation of Iran, a nation that had never done this country, one iota of harm. I use those illustrations in order to give you the extent of the control that is exercised by this committee of 300. There are many other societies that are operating for the RIIA. The Illuminati, which has been around for many, many years. I've written a work called The Illuminati in America 1784 to 1994.
A lot of people think this is an ancient secret society that's gone away. They think that Adam Weisop had a quarrel with the Catholic church, and that's it. Don't you believe it? 13 of the top families in The United States are in the Illuminati today, and they have a big say on everything that happens politically in this country. Then we have the Society of Cincinnati, which I don't think many of you will have heard about.
That is an ultra, ultra secret society to which every president of The United States is forced to belong, including our so called conservative presidents. And I point this out to you to show you that it doesn't matter who is in the White House. This committee of 300 through the Royal Institute for International Affairs, through the Council on Foreign Relations exercise exercises complete control. But their strongest arm is called the Club of Rome. Now when I first heard of the Club of Rome in 1969, I immediately began my investigation.
And as Ken told you, all of my investigations have been done on location, every one of them. The Club of Rome is one of the most insidious, baneful organizations in existence today, which has done intolerable, immeasurable harm to The United States Of America. This committee of 300 told a man called Aurelio Pecki to form this club of Rome with the main object of bringing down the industries and the agricultural development of The United States. He immediately wrote a paper in which he said there are too many people on the earth and that The United States, with its industrial development, its agricultural development, is responsible for this curse of overpopulation. And he picked up the documentation for his work from lord Bertrand Russell, a senior statesman of the committee of three hundred.
And Lord Bertrand Russell had written a work called The Impact of Science on Society. And if you can ever secure a copy of that book, which I doubt you'll be able to get, you will see in there that he said, the world is grossly overpopulated, and we have to get rid of at least half of the world's population, and it doesn't matter how we do it. So the Club of Rome was instituted and organized to start an attack on the world's population using The United States as the whipping boy. And they came up with a paper called the Zero Growth Post Industrial Plan for industry and agriculture for The United States Of America. Three days after that plan was accepted as official United States policy by James Earl Carter, I was able to, through my intelligence people, get a copy of this insidious document.
Basically, what it said was that the middle class in The United States Of America had to be destroyed because in the coming push to a world order, the middle class would be the stumbling block because history had shown that the peasant class in ancient days, when they had revolted, were just easily crushed crushed. There was no resistance, but now had grown a new super class of people in The United States called the middle class who had long term employment, who had job security, who were well paid, who could afford to buy the products that were made by The United States and didn't need to buy products from China or anywhere else. And the Club of Rome post industrial zero growth paper said this has got to stop. We have to bring down the middle class of The United States. And the way that we will do this, the way that we will accomplish this task is by crushing their industries.
In 1980, based on this report, I wrote a small work, a booklet called The Death of The United States Steel Industry. And in that, I told of a French aristocrat by the name of Etienne Darvignon, and I'm sure there's not a single steel worker in America out of a job who's ever heard of this man's name. But they put this aristocrat onto the job of destroying first the steel industry. In my book in 1980, I said that by 1985, we would have silent blast furnaces. The rolling mills would be stopped.
There'd be no more shipbuilding. We'd have thousands of skilled workers who'd pass the skills of their trade down for generations who were forever dispossessed of their jobs. If you go to the Northeast United States today, ladies and gentlemen, and I've just been up in Cleveland where I had a very good radio address I gave there, you will find that what I said in 1980 has unhappily come to pass. In 1970, The United States had 5,000 ships built by good United States know how using good United States steel. 5,000 ships sailing the high seas.
Last year, we had exactly 270 subships and at least 50,000 steelworkers permanently out of a job, jobs that will never come back. What happened? Did we suddenly lose our marvels? Did we suddenly lose that great American know how of getting things done? Did we lack finances?
Did we run out of money? No. None of those things happened. What happened was this dastardly club of room had sent their emissaries to The United States to deliberately destroy our steel plants, and they did it by opening the doors of so called free trade. And everybody who signed the NAFTA treaty and everybody who signs the GATT treaty when it passes is a traitor and a seditionist.
Our mighty steel industry is destroyed. Our shipyards are silent. Our skilled workers are permanently without a job. And if you don't believe me, get the report of the Club of Rome. You know, when I came out in 1969 with my report on the Club of Rome, nobody had ever heard of it.
And people, when they got it, said, now this guy is paranoid. There's no such organization. It's probably something to do with the Catholic church. Well, surprise, surprise, twenty five years later, last year, the club of Rome celebrated its anniversary, and Alexander King, its chairman, stated the American people henceforth must get used to the idea that they will never ever again in their lifetime have full employment. What a scandalous thing that our government is fully cooperating with this organization built up by the Royal Institute for International Affairs to destroy the middle class of The United States and to add to the policies of global genocide.
That brings me to the next question. What is the global two thousand? Once again, when I heard about this policy, it was three days after it had been accepted by the United States government as its official policy. And the Global 2,000 was a blueprint for mass genocide produced by the Club of Rome. Basically, what the Global two thousand calls for is the destruction of half of the world's population by the year 2050, hence the title 2,000.
They built a case based on Bertrand Russell and H. G. Wells' findings that the world was going to be overpopulated, would be a terrible place to live in. That was picked up by a fellow called Robert Strange McNamara, and a stranger individual you're not likely to meet in this world. And this man had a conference of all the leading bankers about twelve years ago, and he said the biggest menace facing the world today is the American middle class and overpopulation.
He linked the two together. And he said, by the year 2050, this is the state of the world. All of these unfed, unwashed people, no jobs. He said, do we want to live in a world like that? So the global two thousand was a genocidal plan to take care of the people of The United States who don't have any jobs and who, like Alexander King said, are never going to get their jobs back, and the masses of people in other nations.
That is why we had the sudden appearance of AIDS. And I was told there's a CAB experiment, that's chemical and bacteriological water experiment going on in Sierra Leone in Africa. That's a remote corner of Africa, West Africa, just above Liberia. If you look at your map and your atlas, and you'll see where it's located. Why Liberia?
Extremely hard country to get to. You have to fly from London. That's the only way you can get there. You land on an island, and then you've got to take a ferry across to the Mainland. And, of course, all people taking the the ferry are heavily scrutinized.
And I managed to work my way. I was told the Americans were doing the CAB experiment. I managed to work my way to within striking distance of a small mission station. And what I discovered was that these blacks were coming in from the bush to this mission station with broken arms or ulcer on the leg or something like that, and they were extensively being treated there, but they were dead by the evening. What was actually going on was that a laboratory had been set up using Lassa fever virus.
Now at that time, Lassa fever was the one was one of four viruses that could jump the human animal barrier, and it was a deadly virus. They were trying to create a virus that could be mass produced and it could be sent out through the World Health Organization to get rid of millions of people in the world. But the Lassa fever virus proved uncontrollable. It killed three scientists who were working there. So the orders came from Washington, burned the place to the ground, and that's exactly what they did within a radius of a 100 miles.
They bottled up some of these viruses they'd been experimenting with and took them back to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. There, they began again, but again, they escaped and killed three more scientists. So they incinerated the whole laboratory, seal it off and incinerated. The same experiments are now going on in Harvard University right now, but they're not using the Lassa fever virus. That has proved to be too tough for them to handle.
Instead, the United States government gave millions of dollars to the United States military chemical and bacteriological warfare establishment at Fort Detrick, and they began experimenting with the AIDS virus. I knew about the AIDS three years before the word ever came out in the world, in The United States particularly, because of my field work in Sierra Leone. The British government used their Fortin Down CAB facility. It's easier to get into the Bank of England boss than to get into Fortin Down. All the deadliest viruses in the world are being crafted there.
In pursuance of the goal of Global two thousand to decimate the world. Shortly after this experiment had finished at Fort Detrick, the World Health Organization started a massive vaccination campaign. They said, for once and for all, we're going to wipe out the scourge of smallpox. They chose Africa and Brazil, launched a massive vaccination campaign. Immediately, AIDS began to appear.
Thousands and thousands of people began dying of a strange new virus, which the World Health Organization then said had come from the bite of a green monkey. They forgot to tell you the green monkey's been there for centuries, and he'd been biting people if he ever did for centuries, but no disease of that nature had ever occurred. The World Health Organization deliberately took this virus, which was crafted from a series of animal viruses, including mediastinum sheep, which destroys the brain, which is why you find AIDS patients get dementia probably first before any of the other AIDS related complex diseases appear. And they began vaccinating innocent people on the massive scale, and they began dying like flies. Why Africa and why Brazil?
Because those two countries had the biggest black population in the world. And I want to tell the black people of The United States Of America, do not trust the Democrat party. Do not trust government. Do not believe that government is your friend. To you, they to them, you are dispensable the same way as we are.
Millions of people died. I went through Uganda on an inspection tour, and I saw whole areas decimated where previously there had been small towns and villages. There was not a living soul in sight. And that is going on today. The AIDS epidemic is completely out of hand.
It swept the world. It's been swept under the carpet in The United States Of America. We were told that this is a disease which is passed by homosexuals. True enough, but that's not the primary cause of it. This is a crafted virus that was spread throughout the world to decimate the population.
Coming behind them, and we reported this about two years ago in our World Interview News magazine, is the v b r o nineteen cholera virus, the deadly killer. You get this cholera in the morning. If it's not immediately treated with massive doses of expensive antibiotics, you'll be dead in a day and a half. This epidemic swept India, carrying away millions of people. I don't know if you've heard of it in the press.
I doubt it. Behind that is a deadly strain of malaria, and some of our forces in Somalia contracted this disease, a strain of malaria which acts almost like the HIV virus. It attacks the human immune system. And behind that, the black plague. Now you've had some experience with black plague recently.
Experiments were conducted in this area and in California with the black plague distributing them, these plague viruses, to definitive areas by means of encoded scalar waves using extremely low frequency radiation, which was a warping technique developed in 1934 by the great Soviet virologist, V. A. Gurchev. This is not Buck Rogers stuff, ladies and gentlemen. This is today's deadly truth.
So some of the end of of the Indian reservations were targeted, and all of a sudden, they began dying of black plague. And then we were told, well, the harvest mouse droppings are responsible. Well, the harvest mouse has been doing these droppings for centuries, but none of them got the black plague before that. But what happened immediately following the so called population control meeting in Cairo, there was a sudden and violent outbreak of black plague in India. And it is still going on, and it is not under control.
This is all part of the global two thousand mass genocide plan. I know something about the black plague because in my research in the British Museum, I discovered that the black Venetian nobility had never none of their families or members had ever got the black plague. Yet the black plague, as you know, swept through Europe and killed half of the population of Europe, but none of their families ever got it. So I began seeking for the answers, I found them in the Cairo Museum. So they people said, well, how come if these things are true, how are they going to protect themselves?
They have they being the committee of 300, their servants, and their families, they have the means of protecting themselves by certain types of herbal compounds mixed with sugar. And they also have, of course, the protection of extremely low frequency radiation where using the technology developed by the great virologist, Gertrude, who proved that every living thing on this earth has a vibratory cycle. And he was able to measure the vibratory cycle of various deadly viruses. And by vibrating them double their cycle, you would kill them instantly. So that's one of the defensive weapons that these people have got that will kill the plague if they ever get it.
The same technique, of course, will kill cancer cells. But the medical profession run by the Rockefeller family and all the pharmaceutical companies do not want you to know this because when you go into the doctor, he's gonna write you a prescription for a chemical drug. There's no chemical drug benefit out of extremely low frequency radiation vibration. No profit to these people. So that's the Global 2,000.
Decimate the world's population and particularly hit hard The United States middle class. How are they financing all of this stuff? They're financing it through the fundee who I mentioned to you earlier, the Venetian black nobility. Now why are they called the black nobility? They called that because of the vileness and the evilness of their deeds.
These families date back to the eleventh centuries, the Lucatis, the Recanatis. They were called and the Gelts, by the way, I'll come to them. They're particularly interesting. They were called that because of the evilness of their deeds. They made Lucrezia Borgia look like a Sunday school teacher.
They had so much money, which was the outcome of the drug trade, the years of investing, the years of gaining control of every mining, mineral, gold, oil, natural resource of the world, that they can afford to finance these things. So the black nobility or the ancient aristocrats of Venice and Genoa, and they called that because of the nature of their deeds. The black Gaels were one of the worst of them. Now interesting enough, the Queen of England, Queen Elizabeth II, is a Gael. She's not a Windsor.
This was a title that was evolved in 1935 by her father to put researchers off the track. I like to include myself in that category, although I wasn't doing it then. I was much too young to be doing it. But he didn't like that certain people were getting hot on the track of who this royal family actually was. And so this was put out that they are the House of Windsor.
Are not. They are the House of Gelf, and it's important for us to know that because every time there's a financial crisis, it follows a meeting of the Black Gelfs upon the Royal Britannia yacht of the Queen of England, which anchors off the coast of Venice. And all the world bankers meet over there and say, now this is what we're going to do to country x. This is how we're going to control this worldwide situation. And then they go up and give their orders to everybody.
So that is the way it is done. I told you earlier that they control The United States even in the days of president Lincoln. They had him assassinated on the orders of the Israeli. And they then, of course, in later years, were able to elect one of the worst socialists we've ever had, the worst misfortune to suffer under, Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was elected by a ploy.
Of course, they got Teddy Roosevelt and the Bull Moose party running as a supposedly third candidate to siphon votes off so that Wilson could be elected as a socialist president. Now our eyes have been fixed on Moscow. We've been led down the garden path, ladies and gentlemen. All of the time, we've been looking at Moscow, and we've been told what demons they are in Moscow. Rightly so.
But all the time this was going on, the Trojan horse of socialism in Washington DC has been stealing our country away from us. And in my book, socialism, the road to slavery, I give you a full and factual description of exactly how this was done. In 1898, the Fabian Society, a socialist organization, said sent Ramsay MacDonald, prime minister of England, to The United States to spy out the land. He came back, and he said, there are two things in the way. You have a very strong middle class, and you have the constitution of The United States, both of which have got to be destroyed before we can socialize America.
The first step they took was getting a socialist president in office in the form of Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson was controlled out of England by sir William Wiseman, head of the North American desk of MI six. Now in case you don't know MI six, it is the most powerful and the oldest of all intelligence agencies in the world. They taught the CIA. They taught the Vatican intelligence.
They taught the French intelligence. They taught the Mossad. They taught the checker. Captain Hill of MI six went out and set up the Mossad. And captain Hill went to Russia and helped the Bolsheviks set up their single cell apparatus.
Sir William Wiseman was the controller of Wilson through Colonel House. Now who was Colonel House? He was an unknown person who emerged out of Texas. His father served the Rothschild during the civil war, and he emerged out of the war as the only person in Texas who had made any money. And House was sent to Washington in order to control the first socialist president, and he took his orders from Wiseman.
And House lived about a few blocks away from Wilson. And above him, Weisman had an apartment. And that type of control is not gone. It is still here to this very day, right now, as I speak to you. Other questions.
Give us some examples of what you're talking. How do we know that what you're saying is true? I'll refer you to the great soldier's son of The United States Of America, General Douglas MacArthur, a great patriot, a great warrior, a great Christian. When Douglas MacArthur was in Korea, he and General Strattermeer of the Air Force devised a plan that would have put China out of action for the next fifty years. He submitted this plan to Washington, an arch socialist, one of the most vilest preachers who ever walked this earth by the name of Dean Rusk, immediately summoned the president of The United States to a meeting in Blair House.
And he said, mister president, we have seen the plan submitted by general Douglas MacArthur, and there's no way in the world that you can allow him to implement this plan. And Truman said, why not? He said, you know very well that anything that relates to China has to be cleared by the Royal Institute for International Affairs first. And he said they don't want you to do this. And MacArthur was not allowed to carry out his plan.
And 50,000 sons, beautiful Americans, were slaughtered on the battlefields of Korea needlessly because of orders from the Royal Institute for International Affairs, and that same institute is controlling president William Jefferson to this day. MacArthur was eventually bola hatted on the orders of the British government. I mentioned earlier the death of John F. Kennedy. Given the methods that are well known in intelligence circles of how to get rid of bothersome people, It would have been a very simple matter to make it look as though Kennedy had died of a heart attack or some other natural cause.
Instead of that, in order to warn every president that would follow in his wake, every powerful person in this country in the know, you do not kick over the traces. You obey us, or you will see what will happen to you. Kennedy was publicly and brutally executed in a plan carried out by British MI six under the control of sir William Stevenson and his lieutenant, a Canadian citizen by the name of major Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. Now you won't get that in any of the accounts of the Kennedy assassination. You'll find it in my book, the committee of three hundred.
You'll also find it in my monographs about the Kennedy assassination. Who are these people? Sir William Stevenson ran American intelligence throughout the second World War out of the RCA Building in New York. His second in command, a Canadian citizen, major Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, ran division five of the FBI counterintelligence. You want examples of how Britain controls this country, I have given you them.
I've also told you that every secretary of state since 1919 is selected by the Royal Institute for International Affairs on the orders of the Committee of Three Hundred. Why is this? We go to these conventions, and there's all the hoopla in the world. The balloons are flying. The straw boaters are in the air.
Bush has been elected conservative president. Reagan has been elected. What happens in reality? The secretary of state who's charged with carrying out the policies subverts each and every one of them. You show me a secretary of state that has acted in the best interest of The United States Of America since 1919, and I will give you the only money that I've got in the bank, which is about $1,500.
You're welcome to it because I know that you will not be able to do that. Every secretary of state has subverted and acted in a treasonable manner towards the people of this great country. And when they haven't done it directly, they've done it through surrogates like Lachlan Curry, who ordered the military to jettison a shipment of arms destined for the great Chinese leader, Chiang Kai shek, to jettison overboard these arms in the Indian Ocean, and that's exactly what they did. We think that we elect our presidents. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not elect our presidents.
They are selected for us long before we'd even heard of them, and I've given you two examples this morning of how this is done. The three hundred office at Aspen keeps a tight control over every political event that takes place in this country. And it was this office through Margaret Thatcher that ordered president Bush to violate the constitution of The United States Of America and to violate his own personal oath to uphold the laws of The United States by sending our troops to the Gulf War against Iraq, a nation that had never done us any harm. And we did it by the dirtiest of dirtiest tricks. We got the daughter of one of the Al Shabaq clan, over 400 of these people, and they are these are the most degenerate, disgusting people that you'd ever come across.
The ruler has a 140 wives. He doesn't have them all at the same time. When he gets tired of one, he says, I divorced thee. I divorced thee three times, and she's gone. When the Iraqi troops came in there, and they turned it over to the Red Cross in Geneva, a 140 marriage certificates.
This was the man that your sons and your daughters are propping up today in Kuwait in a most illegal manner in violation of the constitution of The United States Of America. And Bush did a Texas two step around the constitution. He did not get the mandatory declaration of war. I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied the annals of congress, the congressional votes, and the congressional records for twenty five years. And in those pages will be found more wisdom, more in-depth information about the constitution than you'll ever get from any law school.
Anyway, most of the law schools have professors far to the left of Marx, and they don't know anything much about the constitution. I talked to a few people, one lawyer in congress, and said, what do you know about the con the constitution? Well, I got one semester of law when I was at law school on the and the in that was something about the constitution. Our constitution is not even taught in The United States school system. Isn't that an utter shame and a resounding disgrace?
Bush said the troops Bush did not get a constitutional declaration of war. This is a very difficult area of the constitution. It's probably one of the most complex areas of the constitution. It's a five step process that involves both houses making separate declarations, then joint declarations. Then the army has to be informed, and then the public has to be informed.
And then we have to be told whether it's a a private war or a public war, I. E, whether all the armed forces are going to be employed or only one branch. In so called police actions, the president has forty five days to use only one branch of the service. Bush violated his oath of office by going to the United Nations to which we do not belong and getting them to give him a so called color so that he could send our troops to The Gulf. Our troops to this day are in The Gulf illegally in violation of the constitution of America, and we're still paying for it.
The story that the Gulf states put up all the money, you're gonna ask the general accounting office as I did, how much money have they paid. We are still paying for the Gulf War. And now we've got another huge bill to meet, billions of dollars for Clinton's fantasies to go out there and support this disgusting Al Sabah clan. I don't know if you know the story of Kuwait. It's really a horrendous one.
I don't want to get into that too much, but that land was stolen from the Iraqi people by the British imperialists. They came in and drew a line through the sand right through the middle of the most important oil field that had just been discovered, the Rommelier Oil Field. They then thought this is gonna be called to wait. And they brought up these tame sheiks from Bahrain and put them in as the rulers. And since then, they've been stealing the oil off Iran, and the proceeds go to the British banks in the city of London for the Committee of three hundred.
They're just doing the same thing now in South Africa with the gold. That's part of their tactics to gain control of all natural resources through the world. I also touched briefly on Giovanni Agnelli and Mrs. Clinton and how she had left her husband and Pamela Harriman. Pamela Harriman, for her duties in getting Clinton elected, was given a plum job as ambassador for The United States to France.
And this is what happens to the traitors. Patriots are punished, and traitors traitors are rewarded. Dennis de Consigni, who voted for the giveaway of our property in Panama and who voted for the crime bill and every other obscenity that is passed by the federal government in violation of the constitution. He's now going to get a plum ambassadorship when he retires top of his huge pension of something like 200,000 a year. I've been asked whether Clinton will stay the full term.
Yes. He will. Clinton will stay the full term because he's been given a job to do, and that is to pass certain far reaching socialist measures. And he's been very successful in doing that with the help of so called Republicans. I personally am not in favor of political parties.
I'm like George Washington. He said political parties are baneful, and in the long run, they are harmful. What happened in NAFTA, a so called conservative, mister Newt Gingrich, who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him, went out and acted as the floor manager, as the party whip in true parliamentary style, and he whipped up a 132 Republicans, so called, to support NAFTA. And no doubt he will do the same thing with this dreadful GAP treaty, which is coming up in a vote in the lame duck session. So he's going to run.
And I'll let you into some information which I just got a few days ago from French intelligence. Clinton would not be able to run on his record or anything that he's done or anything meritorious. So what he's done, he sent emissaries, and this is the first time you're gonna hear this. Might hear it in 1996, but this is the first time you're gonna hear this now. He has sent emissaries to Iran to dig and dig and promise huge sums of money to any of the Iranians who will come up with the actual documentation of the scandal where our prisoners were kept there until Reagan was elected the president.
And if he can come up with this documentation, he's going to keep them. In 1996, he's going to come out and say to America, I have here documentary proof of how bad your Republicans are, president Bush and Reagan. Look what they did. And on the strength of that, he hopes to run-in 1996. That's what he's doing now.
He's taking the money that he's not entitled to, and he's using it to bribe the Iranians to come up with these documents. I don't know that they will because I think they like him even less than I do, and that's saying a lot. What is the Clinton agenda? Clinton has been instructed to socialize America. And let me tell you that the enemy in Washington is more to be feared than the enemy in Moscow.
I've said this for years. And we have creeping socialism in this country today, which has nowhere to go but to communism in the new world order, one world government. That is the direction that William Jefferson Clinton is pushing this country as hard as he can go. Nothing has changed. The con the constitution of The United States is immutable.
I violently disagree with justice Ginsburg, who says the constitution is flexible. The constitution is not flexible. Our founding fathers meant it to be an immutable document that would stand the test of the ages of time and foil people like William Jefferson Clinton and Roosevelt and every other dictator that is going to follow unless we stand up and take our back our states right. In future, historians are going to say, this was the maddest nation on earth to allow this insidious war to be waged against them. And that's what it is, ladies and gentlemen.
This is a war to the death for The United States Of America. The only thing that is making it unrecognizable as a war, there are no big drums being beaten. There are no flags waving, but we are being insidiously destroyed in a trade war. And GATT is a coup de grace to kill off the American middle class for once and for all. This is a war to the death against the people of The United States.
The Committee of Three Hundred wants to reduce us through socialism into a nation no better than the third world countries. That is the aim and object of all of this. Once a nation has destabilized, it's very easy to deal with it and push it into a socialist new world order, a one world government. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say to you today, the time has come for us to recognize that we are 50 individual nations. We have all the rights of an individual nation.
We gave only limited empowerments to the federal government. They have grossly, flagrantly violated the concord that we have with them. Therefore, we, the masters, have the right to go to Washington and tell them the servants. Henceforth, this Concordat is severed unless we understand from today all of these unconstitutional measures will be rolled back, and a new system will come into being. The Federal Reserve Bank, that private enterprise bank will be put out of business.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not anarchy. This is the god given right of each of the 50 nations of which the state of New Mexico is an individual nation. We are the only entity in the entire world that has a legal document that allows us to dissolve the federal government without resorting to violence and bloodshed.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a Club of Rome member, envisions a civil depopulation of the planet to one billion people, a drastic reduction from today. The Earth can sustain up to two billion individuals, depending on liberty and material consumption. Fewer people allow for more freedom and consumption, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate eight or nine billion. (Source: YouTube) Visit wideawakemedia.com for similar content. ClimateScam, NetZero, DepopulationAgenda.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Dennis Meadows, a prominent member of the Club of Rome, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to just one billion people—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption desired. They mention that having more liberty and consumption requires fewer people, while a strong dictatorship with a low standard of living could accommodate a larger population. However, the speaker emphasizes the importance of freedom and a high standard of living, suggesting that we need to reduce our population from the current 7 billion to a more sustainable level. They hope for a slow and equal decline, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. The speaker admits that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.